ALMOST every day some report or event is claimed as evidence of global warming. Al Gore’s recent movie An Inconvenient Truth went so far as to claim that we have a “climate crisis” right now.
Do we?
It can be hard finding the real facts on climate change among all the hype.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a mandate to deliver a comprehensive assessment of human-induced climate change every few years, and the Fourth Assessment Report, AR4, is due for release sometime this year.
You have possibly been led to believe, given all the media headlines, that this big report was released in Paris last Friday. It wasn’t.
Friday’s document was just a 21-page summary of the first part of AR4, and doesn’t even have a bibliography.
That’s right, just a summary of a quarter of the big report.
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis – Summary for Policy Makers is nevertheless an important document, because it details the position of many global warming experts. So what does it say?
Read my opinion in today’s The Courier Mail, click here: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21169204-27197,00.html .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer, your report is fine except that it refers to metric units rather than use the English or Standard system–as God intended, of course.
Jen, you made the same error that is currently being propagated on right-wing blogs by people who haven’t read the report.
You said:
“For example, while Al Gore claimed that sea levels are about to rise by more than 6m, the IPCC summary indicates that sea levels have risen by just 17cm and may rise by no more than another 18cm, certainly no more than 59cm by 2099.”
The report does NOT say the will certainly be no more than 59cm by 2099. The report says the 59cm figure is correct for increased ice flow rates in Antarctic and Greenland to the rates observed for 1993-2003. The report states that if these rates increase linearly with temperature than the upper bound is 79cm (a maximum of 0.2m can be added).
This is all in the second dot point below the table showing sea level rises.
You also raise the rather silly point that there has been no warming since 1998. There’s been plenty of warming since 1999 – which doesn’t mean much, as only two years that are close together are being considered. The have been plenty of ups and downs over the past 50 years, but the average temperature (particularly when you use a running mean to smooth the data out) is quite a bit higher now. The next strong El Nino will most likely bring a hotter year than 1998, and an end this ‘global warming has ended’ guff.
One area where the SPM and 4AR will be out of date is on the research that describes accelerating ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica (late last year and in these blog archives). So to add to Nexus’s point above – their estimates are probably conservative.
For those who dislike the IPCC can anyone recommend a better process? And a better method of communicating climate risks and opportunities? Serious questions.
Two great questions Luke,
I would urge others to voice their views – probably would give Jennifer the opportunity for an op ed piece of great substance.
My two bits: basically get back to the fundamantals of science.
Get rid of the focus on consensus (a post-modernist way of doing science based on argument from authority – can ignore empirical/real data).
Avoid conclusions by authority that can lead to pronouncements like “the debate is closed” (in science the debate is NEVER closed).
If you are using interdisciplinary tools (statistics, computer algorithms etc) the peer review process must include a thorough review of these as well by appropriate subject matter experts.
Get rid of long term projections – especially that will sensationalise the research and put it squarely into the meeja / politic space.
Could go on – must run. I’ll have glass of winbe tonight and think on it some more…
cheers
Arnost
I know consensus is on the nose – but any report of our reformed “neo-IPCC” would have to recommend and/or conclude something ? How would they do it? What would work?
If we said to the PM – “Dear PM – we the neo-IPCC have deliberated now for many years and we’ve come up with a report that has 5 totally divergent conclusions of equal weight and nobody has been offended. P.S. We also all paid our own way to the meetings and did the whole report on our annual leave.”
His/her response might be .. ..
Very good points, Arnost. In particular, the need for review by appropriate experts; and the avoidance of extrapolation beyond the known data. Also very suspicious when people try to close a debate down.
Warning! Warning! Extrapolation Alert!
Nexus et al are using Greenland glaciers as a proxy for the greenland ice sheet when the glaciers form only part of the total ice body.
The issue of melt water getting to the bottom of the ice and speeding up the ice flow is only relevant to parts of the glacier where cracking will allow the water to penetrate. The only exception to this would be in cases of geothermal heating of the underside but that could not possibly be attributed to atmospheric temperature forcing.
The majority of ice remains in the 1500m thick sheet which can only melt from the top and generally forms an impervious layer for melt water. Note also that the seasonal window for surface melting is about three months.
Furthermore, if this scenario was valid then there should be evidence of the entire glacier moving, not just a receding from the bottom. There should be a drop from the top of the glacier as well but the evidence is clear that ice is still accumulating on top of the ice sheet and also at the top of the glaciers that originate in parts of that sheet.
Is this just another example of “Gullible Warming”.
Jennifer
I never thought that I would sink so low as to criticise someone’s column without even reading it.
But I don’t intend to read your column.
My time is precious and I’m no longer prepared to waste it, on unravelling the views of people who claim to be environmentalists, but appear interested only in trying to sabotage the considered opinions of the reputable vast majority of scientists.
Christina http://www.antinuclearaustralia.com
When do you take out house insurance. When its 1% likely your house could burn down, or when you’ve proven beyond doubt that your house is on fire. Think about it.
Unfortunately, its now 90% likely that we are sucessfully burning down our own house. Our thanks to the crackpot sceptics that made it all the more easier for the Howard government to sit back and do nothing. I’m sure some of you are on the payroll.
Ian, I am stating exactly what is in the IPCC report, not passing judgement on it.
Jen claimed that the IPCC report stated that there will be CERTAINLY by no more than a 59cm rise in sea-levels by 2099. Quite simply, the IPCC report does not state this. What the report does state is that there could be up to a 79cm sea-level rise by 2099. The error was probably accidental but to me it indicates sloppiness.
The IPCC report does not use the word ‘certain’ for ANY predictions. The closest it comes is ‘virtually certain’ in regards to future temp. increases. The degrees of uncertainty are quantified very well and it is quite poor to ignore them when writing op-eds about the report.
Nexus, I appreciate your point, I could have been more careful with my words. And so could you… I suggest we refer to the document as the IPCC SUMMARY of the IPCC report due out in May. You keep referring to it incorrectly as ‘the report’.
A good response by Arnost, but what\’s the point without making projections and comparing them, would it be doing science in a vacuum?
On consensus – how to change the system and still get an internationally accepted approach (the scale and dynamics gives scientific challenges). If there\’s disagreement on the method, who decides and who ditches? Are choices along the way closed or representative?
(the science only, not the policy or interpretation stages) it is international, by itself a problem; and it is inherently vulnerable to political influence. Even trying to change the process itself provides a foot in the door for those who seek to derail it altogether.
It\’s always a problem for scientists, technicians and engineers to report accurately in a way that\’s useful for policy and decision making. I\’d like to hear constructive alternatives for the entire process (excludes sweeping dismissals of the entire matter). As Barry has said, it\’s about risk management so how to approach that?
Christina, thanks for wasting several seconds of my time reading your post. If you had put the antinuclear bit up the top I would have known to skip it.
Good point, Jen. I stand corrected. Summary for policymakers it is. When discussing science it is in my view very important to be accurate and concise.
I’d be interested in any areas of the summary for policymakers that you think do not accurately reflect what is in the peer-reviewed literature. This will be where the bones of contention will lie until AR4 is actually released, and the literature the summary and report are based on is known.
They could have called the degree of uncertainty “statistically insignificant” instead of “likely”. That would be just as “accurate”.
“Get rid of the focus on consensus (a post-modernist way of doing science based on argument from authority – can ignore empirical/real data).”
I disagree with this arnost. Science is – and always has been – completely about consensus.
Its do with with scientific experiments needing to be repeatable and repeated. Its no good if one scientist in isolation conducts an experiment and comes to a conclusion. The experiment needs to be scrutinised, critiqued, duplicated, challenged etc by peers before any conclusions are considered incorporated into wider scientific knowledge.
“incorporated into wider scientific knowledge” is necessarily wooly because it relies on consensus.
Galilieo didn’t discover that the Earth revolves around the sun. Plenty of people had that theory(and even took measurements) before him, from the well known people like Copernicus, to unheard of people – i wouldn’t be surprised if long forgotten Chinese or middle-eastern or even ancient greek(!) scholars had already concluded that the earth revolves around the Sun.
But these earlier thinkers didn’t build a consensus. Gallileo was at the tipping point on the issue, when the consensus started changing.
There are still people that think the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it, but they are a minority – not part of the consensus.
Here’s a copy and paste from the wiki article on the scientific method. ‘Falsifiability’ is one of the elements of the scientific method listed in the article:
“Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives.
This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases. ”
The reason why consensus is on the nose is because people keep pointing to the scientific consensus to ‘win’ the debate. That’s the political debate, not the scientific one. The reason they do that is because other people are trying to win this political debate as well, and hoist up any old random chap with a PhD and no other relevant experience to say that the bulk of scientific thinking on the issue is wrong.
People like Flannery, Al Gore, Bob Carter, Pat Michaels, John Howard are commentators and participants in the political debate – its perhaps unfortunate that their voices are louder and more influential than the opinions of people who have made a far more significant contribution to the *scientific* consensus.
Second of Luke’s question (Risk) is a biggie…
New IPCC WG1. Baseline the current understanding – identify / include only that data set that can be tested & replicated. Include data from not only atmospheric climatologists, but from geologists, oceanographers, astrophysicists, ecologists (the list goes on).
New IPCC WG2. Validate all theories – identify theories that seek to project future climate responses and test them against this data set retrospectively. Note: this may include stuff that does not fit under WG1. Assess the probability of their worth (i.e. strong correlation with WG1 data gives a high probability of being valid) and assess their materiality (i.e. being generous here: let’s say CO2 concentrations will be highly material, volcanic being low)
New IPCC WG3. Model and project into the future – take the (above) and combine using algorithms driven by the probability / materiality. Test against WG1 results (iterative process – if models outputs show that there is a strong correlation for some time but not for others, use this to double check WG1 data).
New IPCC WG4. Assess mitigation / adaptation – given projections from WG3 identify what where and how much needs to be done to change significant components that drive the projections. Ideally would propose changes that can have both immediate & long term benefits – i.e. fund technology will have value now irrespective of where we end up vis-à-vis climate in a 100 years.
New SPM. Summarise where we are (WG1), predict environmental / social etc responses to projections (WG2, 3 & 4). Recommend areas where funding will give best value, and quantify costs of action v inaction.
I’m probably going to cop heaps – but before you level massive amounts of invective, this is totally hypothetical and only meant to go along with Luke’s challenge and stimulate a bit of what could a very interesting discussion.
cheers
Arnost
Just remember guys – that you need a method to work through all the different views. Writing a lovely story isn’t enough.
Can you present the PM Gillard or President Hillary with 5 different options ?
Can you make Greenpeace and Exxon simultaneously happy? And the Chinese, Americans and Europeans. Forget Aussie as we just do whatever the Yanks do.
Wow, it only took 1000 scientists to launch a 21 page summary of the first part of a report.
Can’t any of you see why we, the people, hold the UN, the IPCC, & increasingly, scientists in such low esteem?
The UN is the largest, & most expensive monument to incompetence yet devised by man.
The only reasons, not to laugh out loud at the mention of it’s name is 1/; you are being paid by it, or 2/; you are too busy throwing up, to be able to do so.
Steve
There is NO consensus in empirical science – but plenty in science that involves the Socratic Method, or deductive reasoning from an initial presumption.
Science starts with empirical method, from which the deductive method is used to develop tests etc.
Good science is empirical method first, deductive method second.
Science in which this priority is inverted is essentially pseudoreligion.
Empirically gravity is fact – there is no consensus about it.
So your comment that science was always is consensus is totally wrong.
After all only one ugly fact is necessary to slay the most beautiful theory.
Luke,
I’m wasting my last comment here – but: THE METHOD IS SCIENCE.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost, i think “The method is science” is a bit of a copout don’t you? *smile*. Its easy to identify a problem and propose a simple solution and process, but when you get up to your armpits in implementation, you realise how far short you were.
Think about the enormous amount of work and conflict and debate that goes into trying to get so many scientists and governments to hammer out such a publication as the IPCC report. The ideas and thoughts in the IPCC report have run a savage gauntlet of opinion, and i’m sure there is a lot of research that didn’t make the cut. “The method is science” doesn’t begin to articulate a process for grappling with this.
Hasbeen thinks its all a waste of money. Maybe (s)he would prefer a fascist solution where one party quickly and efficiently (and hopefully correctly) tells everyone else the way its going to be without any debate.
———
*Experientially*, gravity is a fact.
But empirically: What’s the current consensus on *what* gravity is and how it works? Was Newton’s classical view 100% correct? or has the consensus on gravity been changing over the last century, now that we have better measuring equipment and new ideas to understand the finer detail and identify limitations in Newton’s work?
Here’s a bit on part of the current consensus on gravity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
Hasbeen – the IPCC authors have written somewhat more than 21 pages – the leaked second order draft that Schiller has drawn our attention to here is about 320 megabytes worth. http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/
We look forward to your critique and your suggestion of an alternative method of doing business.
What is the strict meaning of ‘consensus’? I have always thought it meant “nobody disagrees”. If so, then “consensus” will be a sad day for science, and for this blog. If it happens, I will retire. Will I then be entitled to the honorific JMB(retd.)?
I think Sam nailed it nicely.
It’s also worth remembering which side one’s bread is buttered. When the IPA has anywhere near the environmental credibility of the IPCC, then perhaps people without vested financial interests in global warming scepticism would bother listening.
Until then, this blog is as transparent as Exxons ‘scientific’ PR.
Continuing from above,
The creation and organisation of the supporting infrastructure of the neo-IPCC is probably the second most difficult task (the most difficult being implementation – i.e. motivating/cajoling everyone to do it!).
So, to loose the last vestige of credibility that I may have…
Under which august body’s auspices is this going to happen? The UN for all its failings is probably the best place for it – however there are (as I se it) two major failings of the current UN IPCC. These are the lack of transparency and accountability.
The reason for setting up the neo-WG1 and WG2 groups was specifically to gain transparency and accountability and moreover to be testable.
Neo-WG1 would become the repository of all “empirical” data used to both support and challenge any relevant theory. It would index and make publicly available the data of any tree ring set, ice core sample or thermometer readings etc in their raw form – no smoothing, interpolation or elimination of “noise” – i.e. anyone could go to the source and get identical readings. Neo-WG2 would become the repository of all “deduced” data. It would index and make public the guts of each “analysis” ensuring that all deductions / results it can be exactly replicated using data from the WG1 repository.
As a consequence of the information being public, the accountability for accuracy will therefore lie with the scientific community – if errors are identified, new / better data obtained, all that is needed is to submit this to WG2, and if found meritorious (i.e. passes scientific test), then any new data can be added, identified bad data will be removed (or better its probability set to zero) and the probability allocation to any dependent analysis / theory can also be adjusted accordingly. This also means that WG2 will need to publish all the changes / additions to the data sets (and the reasons why this occurred) on a regular (say monthly) basis to ensure that nothing gets through without the scientific community being able to review immediately.
Given that the data is transparent and testable, the accountability is shifted to the scientific community, and you have a mechanism for managing changes to disputes over data, there should be no real basis for controversy. (This alone would be a significant achievement!)
The transparency of and accountability for predictions of neo-WG3 and neo-WG4 is a bit more difficult in that you can’t test a prediction. Nevertheless, if the predictions are to be based only on data from WG1, and WG2, then normal peer review may be sufficient to ensure that the methodology / code etc is sound, and that it follows most current / state of the science understanding of the interrelationships of the issue at hand.
Finally, with the neo-SPM – I used the word recommend in my previous post. I take it back. The SPM should recommend nothing, all it should do is summarise the science, and at most put in order the: probabilities of projections in WG3; or derived value of the options in WH4 etc for policy makers to assess, prioritise and act upon as deemed appropriate by them.
Here endeth the rant.
If you want a look at a completely different approach – check out:
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2007/01/a_method_for_ac.html
cheers
Arnost
here is recent interview with Bjorn Lomborg on Al Gore:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=112806D
“Perhaps this is most clear when you look at the movie from Al Gore. Everything he says is technically true. He says for instance that if Greenland melts, sea levels will rise about 20 feet. This is technically true. But of course the very evocative imagery of seeing Holland disappear under the waves – or New York, or Shanghai – leaves the impression that this is all going to happen very soon. Where in fact the UN climate panel says that the sea level rise over the next 100 years is going to be 30 cm – about 20 times less than he talks about. So there is a dramatic difference between what we’re being told and what we’re actually seeing. Which is also why I am writing a new book which comes out next fall on climate change, and I will address some of these issues. ”
Steve,
Gravity is the force that compels two bodies to approach each other according to the product of their masses and the square of the distance separating them.
This fact is empirically determined.
The specious reasoning you invoke is to argue about what is the cause of this force. Not the scientific fact of its existence. What ever its nature epistemologically does not change its measured properties. Science is limited to what we can test experimentally.
I profess no abilities in metaphysics.
Hans note that sea level rise is one of the more controversial aspects. Much of the criticism of the AR4 is about under estimating sea level rise (due to ice sheet dynamics), ie a more conservative, cautious approach in the AR4.
So Lomborg\’s releasing a new book. Then we\’ll catch him in the fall (heh heh).
“when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”
Jennifer earlier – “Nexus, I appreciate your point, I could have been more careful with my words. And so could you… I suggest we refer to the document as the IPCC SUMMARY of the IPCC report due out in May. You keep referring to it incorrectly as ‘the report’.”
Well if you’re going to get picky, this author should also be corrected –
“ON Friday in Paris the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will launch a new report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, with an up-to-date assessment……”
The Author? One Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, Jan 31st 2007
Here’s another scientist who agrees with Jennifer. If you don’t accept that a scientist’s conclusions published by a newspaper are still the conclusions of that scientist, then keep your head and the sand and be the denier yourself.
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
“Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.
“Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.
“What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals.
“Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be.”
Woody I’m starting to think you’re a good old boy.
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-the-first-canadian-phd-in-climatology
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/dear_tim_ball_sue_me.php
Woody did you claim to think independently? Ball said scientific method but I couldn’t find it. How does he explain climate cycles that remain unaffected by human activities? He’d have to show that. Was there widespread public acceptance or widespread international scientific consensus for global cooling 30 yrs ago? He must have a paper or 2 that the journals refused to publish, where’s the link?
>They could have called the degree of uncertainty “statistically insignificant” instead of “likely”. That would be just as “accurate”.
Paul you have repeated the error of many with this statement (eg http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/causal_uncertainty_increases_at_the_rate_of_10_per_cent/). The 90% is “at least 90%” and refers to “most of the warming”. The statment could have been “virtually certain” if most was replaced with some.
The truth is that the published science strongly supports the conclusion that the anthropogenic greenhouse effect has contributed more than 100% of the warming in the last 50 years with a substantial component offset by aerosols and an increase in volcanism over the last 50 years. The reduction in aerosols in places such as Europe and North America which previously hid some of the anthropogenic warming is a plausible explanations why temperatures in these regions are now sky rocketing.
David
PS Jen, I notice that the Australian has seen fit to once again publish Geoffrey Sherrington.
Louis, your Newtonian description of gravity provides a near perfect approximation for how bodies attract one another in most cases, but is found wanting in some cases – e.g. it can’t describe accurately how massless light from stars can have its path bent by the sun, or how black holes exist, how they trap light or how they emit radiation. We need relativity and quantum physics for that, that’s what the new (as in over the last century) consensus is.
CO2 from fossil fuels accounts for as much as 12 ppm of the atmosphere in urban Poland–and for as much as 4.3 ppm in the US. That leaves roughly 999,988 ppm in air that doesn’t come from fossil fuels. Anyone who makes the remarkable claim that CO2 from fossil fuels is overwhelmingly the favorite culprit needs to come up with some remarkable evidence.
Global warming is evident–though it seems to have leveled off–but it smacks of desperation to lay climate change, be it cooling or warming, at the doorstep of a trace gas which humans have increased, at least in the US, by as much as two percent. On the “demonic powerhouse polluter” continent. And that two percent of the essential trace gas is a nearly infinitesimal fraction of the total atmosphere. 4.3 ppm at the high end unless you live in urban Poland.
Luke will call me a ‘shonk’ and other names, but the fact is–*the air is testable*. Test the air, and artifacts of modeling are, to coin a phrase, simply blown away.
Woody, Tim’s legal troubles aside, his qualifications (based on experience and publications) as a climatologist are quite marginal. Proof? Compare his CV with that of, e.g., Andy Weaver.
One of the main faults of the IPCC is that they have not provided a proper probability tree as their main statement. To simply state that sea level rise may be from 0.17 to 0.56 metres by x date is guaranteed to facilitate the focus on the most extreme scenario and it’s subsequent abuse in the policy process.
Where is the probability tree that states something on the lines of;
0.17m drop in SL by 2100 = 0.05
0.00 change in SL by 2100 = 0.15
0.17m rise in SL by 2100 = 0.30
0.34m rise in SL by 2100 = 0.17
0.51m rise in SL by 2100 = 0.10
0.68m rise in SL by 2100 = 0.08
0.85m rise in SL by 2100 = 0.06
1.02m rise in SL by 2100 = 0.04
2.00m rise in SL by 2100 = 0.03
4.00m rise in SL by 2100 = 0.02
This (hypothetical) would give a most likely outcome of 0.43m SL rise but more importantly, allow the debate to focus on the validation of each weighting and the actual circumstances needed to produce that weighting.
At the moment we have clowns like Gore trying to spook people with stuff that is right off the table.
Luke, Pinxi, & (to a minor extent) Steve Bloom, you can always find someone to say that every skeptic is underqualified, which, once again, substantiates my point that liberals personally attack people who don’t agree with them, which has nothing to do with the science and has everything to do with shutting down legitimate debate.
I didn’t claim that Tim Ball was the final word on global warming, but what he says about the subject should be evaluated rather than what others say about him being evaluated. It’s just another point of view which should be respected and considered rather than dismissed off-hand by pretentious scoffers, such as yourselves.
Believe me, Ball is as qualified as most of the so-called scientists in your ally, “Union of Concerned Scientists,” which publishes reports that its members overwhelming agree with exaggerated global warming claims and whose scientists include unrelated professionals such as psychiatrists, who probably only join because of the rich field of patients that the organization offers.
Quit seeking articles from your buddies to criticize people who want to debate the subject. That’s a lazy argument and only makes you look worse.
Schiller – I really despair at your logic but you’re having a good go so you don’t get called a shonk.
1 – don’t get confused with big CO2 fluxes and overall balance. The fluxes from the biosphere – land and oceans are enormous – check the numbers here in the picture/graphic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
Human fluxes are piddly in comparison but change the balance equation considerably.
2 – I don’t use the term pollution for CO2 – it’s an essential component of life on Earth. But it is an emission from our industry and agriculture. And it does has radiative heat absorbing properties in the atmosphere. All this “evil gas CO2” business doesn’t help either and is simply rhetorical.
3 – emissions from burning fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas as well as land clearing for agriculture and soil carbon rundown after clearing are changing the massive up and down balance fluxes slightly into the positive. There is only one reason the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have moved in the dramatic way they have – human activity on the planet. And tracer chemistry has well shown a big slug of the emitted CO2 has ended up in the upper oceans of the world.
4 – at many stages in the last 30 years you would has said that temperature had levelled off only to rise again. You are still massively above the zero point on the classic IPCC global temperature graph of 1970s level temperatures. When the temperature curve starts to plummet or return to these values – get the champagne out for a denialist toast. I don’t know why everyone expects the temperature graph to be a straight line – it hasn’t to date with lots of short term wiggles.
5 The whole issue of “a trace gas” is also rhetorical. An appeal to teensy weansy is not a mathematical or physical analysis of what effect 280 to 370ppm has on heat balance. Just because think it’s teensy weansy doesn’t change the effect. Remember a teansy weansy amount of anthrax, AIDS or plutonium can kill you – how can it – the amount is teansy weansy ! But it does. (no – I’m not saying CO2 is lethal – just an analogy on “size”).
Don’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched and one swallow does not make a summer (even a globally wamred one).
Ian – well look the sea level detail up in the leaked second order draft and inform us. A summary is just a summary – a few k bytes instead of the final 320 megs !
I’m sure the sea level experts would be amused at you calling them clowns – I think you’d wouldn’t last 2 minutes myself before we know who’d be wearing the dunce’s cap.
Woody – Ball hasn’t published anything of note in yonks – that doesn’t prevent him from having a say of course. But he’s not “up with the game” as a contemporary leading scientist. So don’t try to portray that he is. He’s also threatening to sue people who have correctly rebuked him about the exact nature and significance of his qualifications. (and he started this they didn’t !). Says a lot to me about how much store you would put in such a person’s assertions.
You have a lobbyist not a scientist. But lobbyists can have their say – that’s OK.
Jenny
A few Bris people must have laughed at your wish that it rain soon in Brisbane. It actually rains about every second day at the moment.
Luke,
Your point 4 to Schiller above…”I don’t know why everyone expects the temperature graph to be a straight line – it hasn’t to date with lots of short term wiggles.”
Congratulations, you’ve nailed it – the issue is that temps have short term (and longer term) wiggles, and the rate of CO2 increase doesn’t (or at least of the same magnitude).
Doesn’t this indicate that there HAS to be something that better explains the wiggles?
The geologic record shows poor correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Although CO2 does influence global temperature the effect is minimal and short lived as this cycle sits on top of the much larger water cycle (which is what truly controls global temperatures). The water cycle is in turn primarily influenced by natural celestial cycles and trends.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M
cheers
Arnost
Luke, just curious. Does someone pay you to stay on this site and write as much as you do? Really. Who has that much free time?
Woody said:
“Luke, Pinxi, & (to a minor extent) Steve Bloom, you can always find someone to say that every skeptic is underqualified, which, once again, substantiates my point that liberals personally attack people who don’t agree with them, which has nothing to do with the science and has everything to do with shutting down legitimate debate.
I didn’t claim that Tim Ball was the final word on global warming, but what he says about the subject should be evaluated rather than what others say about him being evaluated. It’s just another point of view which should be respected and considered rather than dismissed off-hand by pretentious scoffers, such as yourselves.”
science requires some sort of empirical data, and neither your hero scientist, nor your reply posts carry anything beyond rhetoric. for there to be a true debate, both sides need to be armed with something of substance. unfortunately for the ‘sceptical’ side seems constantly debunked (hockey stick anyone? lomborg??) as well as vastly outnumbered. but before you can attempt to belittle scientific consensus and mention ‘popularity contest’ or something equally lame and over used, please provide some peer reviewed science to support your viewpoint, otherwise its only you who comes across as lazy.
Question though – are you per chance based in the US? Ive never heard of anyone outside it’s borders who refer to ‘liberals’ in the way you do. No attack, just a question!
Yes Woody it’s a nice little contract for me from the Green Socialists’ World Reform Society Very profitable but when you have a a brain the size of a small planet, good networks, a big reference database, and 3 computers going at once – a mere 0.005% of my time. You’re only getting spare idle loop cycles.
Arnost – good TCS link but .. ..
– yep the climate system has all manner of internal oscillations (El Nino etc) – makes things wiggle around somewhat – but short term wiggles ain’t the overall trend. Celestial – nah ! Solar yep on geological time scales yep for sure – just not now.
and this major review:
Vol 443|14 September 2006|doi:10.1038/nature05072
Variations in solar luminosity and their
effect on the Earth’s climate
P. Foukal1, C. Fro¨hlich2, H. Spruit3 & T. M. L. Wigley4
Variations in the Sun’s total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on
the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have
contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed
analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this
new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming
since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun’s output of ultraviolet light, and of
magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate
meaningfully at present.
They also add:
Read the Schiller’s leaked 4AR second draft and see the IPCC discussion on solar cycles It’s not ignored and is discussed at length. Read it.
http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/
As for CO2 lags the temp – sigh – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 (what you’d expect actually)
Cosmic rays – nah –
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
The CO2 evidence is also much more than simple correlation – there’s a whole positive case – lots of physics experiments and empircal field experiments (all previously quoted here).
Jen will boot me soon – but Jen they ask the questions !
Julian – here’s a free kick guys – at least have a go with something decent – gee do I have even have to do contrarian case for you guys
Get into us with this lot !
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/Independent%20Summary.pdf
And you have the leaked second order draft – get stuck in !
And it’s far from all one way – Biggsy normally gives us a serious run for it with some interesting stuff. I’m sure Biggsy is pouring over the “Independent” SPM (ISPM) as we speak. As as the pro-AGW bloggers too 🙂
This is war after all.
You’re either a dirty rotten denialist or a filthy socialist alarmist ?
I you’re gonna come hunting bring a seriously BIG knife. (Crocodile Dundee scene – first movie).
Gotta go – input above 0.05% and climbing.
Luke,
You are assuming that I buy the assumption that CO2 from human beings is substantially–even measurably–warming the planet. I don’t.
Warming drives an increase in CO2–a natural product of metabolism by creatures who constitute about 80 percent of the planet’s biomass. Bacteria.
Which is why most of the recent increase in CO2 is 14C–not from fossil fuels.
In keeping with the nomenclature approved by the IPCC, I am “absolutely sure” (99.9988 sure, in keeping with absolute quantities in the air) that CO2 is not not the “demon gas” that will bake our planet.
One swallow doesn’t make a summer, and 4-12 ppm doesn’t bake a planet.
N.b. Luke appears to accept the 14C methodology and that should not be lost on anyone.
Sorry not meaning Julian per se.
Julian, yes, I live outside of Atlanta in the U.S., where liberals are synonymous with people who are compassionate with other people’s money, act on emotion rather than logic, are out of touch with reality, and are laughed at by rational people. They are often found working for government, in arts, and in academics. Maybe the rest of the world considers them mainstream and doesn’t label them.
Question: Are there ANY scientists skeptical of hysterical gobal warming claims that you or any others would consider deserving of a respectable hearing? If not, then this falls into the second category of liberal denial–refusal to accept any evidence that doesn’t agree with them.
Honestly, please let me know of anyone whose contrary opinion that you might accept.
Luke, it’s interesting to see how former leaders of various communist associations have taken control of environmental groups. I’m glad that they have something in the budget for you. I suspected that you might spend more time typing than thinking.
Okay, gotta go before Jen admonishmes me for over-commenting.
At the risk of incurring Jen’s wrath – answer to Schiller.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
22 Dec 2004
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
It’s 90ppm not 4-12ppm. And it’s warming the plant – nothing has “baked” yet.
Woody – I was joking – Aussies will pull your leg a fair bit you know. I’m not paid by NGOs nor belong to any group. It’s just personal opinion.
“The 21-page summary indicates the world has warmed by 0.74C over the past 100 years. To put this in perspective, temperatures in Brisbane regularly fluctuate by as much as 10C in one day.”
Well, they have in LA today too. So what?
You can’t be serious with this false comparison can you? I mean really?
I had some respect for Jennifer, but no longer. She’s a duped wingnut. It must be genetic, and ancient athropological reasoning glitch I find more evidence of every day. So go ahead, claim that a summary, means the whole report is meaningless. A subversion even! What a waste of a Ph.D. What you have on your side dear are lies and the lying liars who tell them like the Fraser Institute. So sad.
Ahh stock up on suncreen. You’re in for a dry patch.
http://www.realclimat.org
Read the novel: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976900570
Woody does GM Roper pay you?
Premier Beattie quickly hopped onto the bandwagon, after monsoon rains filled once dry dams and flooded flood plains in tropical QLD he observed that “….this is what climate change is doing to us.”
Similarly in Indonesia where floods (worst since 2002) prompted calls that climate change and shopping centres had caused the flooding (what about the non existent drainage canals)
Pack ice in Iceland has returned with a vengeance
http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=260130
It’s all a worry Rog – climate variability and jumbled up with climate change with our pollies and commentators. All over the shop.
Impossibly messy.
Is there no sensible proportion of middle ground. Is it the polarisation of damned denialism or acrid alarmism and nothing else?
Luke,
There is no middle ground according to the “alarmists”, and I’m afraid that this is a bed of their own making. The way of it is that you either are with them (i.e. the IPCC report and supporting science is holy and above any criticism) or if you dare question / challenge you are against them (a damned denialist).
I’ve always considered myself very middle of the road, I think that climate is warming, I think that the CO2 increase contributes – but I don’t think that it is the only/major contributor.
Since I don’t think the answer to the warming is massive changes in lifestyle simply to reduce CO2 output, I challenge / question some of the assumptions behind the IPPC science, and therfore I’m a skeptic and will face crimes against humanity in ten years time.
Being labled as such gets up my nose and sometimes I react agressively, snipe etc. Which in itself contributes to the polarisation.
What’s the answer – get politics /agendas and such as away from the science as possible and let the scientist at it without interference. And I mean getting back to fundamental science where the merit of an argument is assessed on data quality, clarity of logic, replicability etc – not the Post Modernist driven drivel that’s there now where the merit of an argument is principally assessed on how many of the hockey team coterie’s papers are cited.
cheers
Arnost
Hmmmm, Master York
“The wisdom and punditry of Mark A. York, Fishery Biologist, journalist, Historian, Eagle Scout, and nonfiction writer.
Dedicated to bashing the myths perpetuated by the untrained conservative mind on environmental and other political issues facing the world at this critical juncture. And a few thoughts on publishing.”
an example of Yorkies rivetting myth bashing non fiction;
“Fixin to do some fishin, Jack?” McCollum said smiling.
“I could,” Sheldon said. “But I don’t see any Char tailing yet.”
“If this keeps up we’ll have go out to the pads in the skiff,” McCollum said, his tone turning glum.
“Well, the show must go on,” Sheldon said.
“It will go better if we get A.N.W.R., Jack. At least it’s on land.”
Sheldon, kicked his boot into the soupy mush and said, “Not if I have anything to say about it.”
” I’m hoping you won’t,” McCollum said, through a Texas-sized grin. “Now, how about lunch?”
“Don’t mind if I do,” Sheldon said. “It’ll sure beat what the cook has in store for me over at headquarters in Kaktovik.”
“Hot dogs again?”
“Often,” Sheldon said looking despondent at the prospect of facing another meal from Wayne the contract chief cook and bottle-washer. “And prepared in a myriad of ways including broiled, grilled and boiled.” In Kaktovik, there were few dining options.”
gripping stuff
Weeelll Arnost, that\’s a funny one, see Lukey & myself have tried to tell the folks with pitchforks here that the greenie clubs just won\’t let us in. They threw green GM tomaytos and stale bong water at us last time we tried to talk to them. I\’ve even been called right wing! If you\’re truly in the middle of the road then you get hit by traffic passing in both directions. Do you really qualify for the club?
Informed and balanced scepticism is welcome IMO but that\’s not the common voice on this blog or in the media denialism. The science must remain open to scientific review and adjustment. The problem is outright denial and refusal to consider the scientific findings and theories, such as outright disbelief in models by technophobes and attacks on reports/summaries by people who haven\’t read them. Some of the (AGW) climate scientists have gone on the record saying they\’re not comfortable with some of the mistreatment of the science by people with a for or against agenda.
Pinxi,
“If you\’re TRULY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD then you get hit by traffic passing in both directions.” People in the middle of the ROAD don’t get hit as often as people in the middle of a TRAFFIC LANE… 🙂 But if you take any position you do get hit – and such is life. No risk no gain.
Totally agree with your statements that “Informed and balanced skepticism is welcome”, and “The science must remain open to scientific review and adjustment”. I wish it were so – but I just don’t see this happening (see my previous). As to the “common voice” maybe Naomi Oreskes could do a study of the comparative number of alarmist / denialist blog entries / media stories! (on second thoughts, better not – if it turns out that the “alarmist” side is in the majority it would be just more proof that AGW is real 🙂 )
The “outright denial and refusal to consider the scientific findings and theories” problem cuts both ways – and I think that the Hockey Team is more guilty of this than the other “mainstream” denial clubs. Once you are branded a denialist – that disqualifies anything you may add to the debate. Just look at the Tim Ball entries above. I summarise Luke’s argument for dismissing Tim Ball:
“Ball hasn’t published anything of note in yonks”
“He’s not “up with the game” as a contemporary leading scientist”
“He’s also threatening to sue people … Says a lot to me about how much store you would put in such a person’s assertions.”
“You have a lobbyist not a scientist”
Therefore Tim Ball’s argument’s dismissed – and no further arguments to be entered into. Am I impressed – NOT. And I’m sorry to say I see this too often when visiting the “alarmist” sites. Scientist’s like Landsea, Lindzen and Allegre are in the same boat for questioning the AGW “consensus science”.
So as a sign that we two at least can achieve consensus – your very last word. AGENDA.. I totally agree, there is too much AGENDA.
cheers
Arnost
Come on Arnost – Mann et al, Hansen and Schneider have had a fair pizzling here. What the issue is with Ball is that he’s saying look I’m a top notch climate scientist, the first PhD in climate in Canada blah blah. Then someone from the AGW side says “excuse me no you’re not”. Well then it starts .. .. if he had said “look I reckon if you compare the stratospheric thingy with the wotsy you’ll find .. ..”. So he does a personal appeal to authority and gets done like a dinner coz he’s career is fairly parlous.
RC are not perfect but mostly (I said mostly) they are arguing science not how good they are or personalities. You don’t hear how good they are (and they are pretty bloody good !). You get a reasoned argument explained and why alternatives don’t work. Misinterpretations to watch out for. References supplied. You can tell by the style of it that at least it’s a science argument not a PR puff piece. And you have to put the brain in gear to read it – often it hurts and takes 3-4 reads.
You get very little about Exxon and necons and political drivel. You get some climate science up close and intimate.
Luke
I did you a bit of a disservice – was too lazy to find an equivalent exchange to highlight my point. In hindsight, was quite dumb of me to mention you by name in the post. Wasn’t meant to be personal and if offense was taken, I appologise
I don’t necessarily agree with all you just said though. And (sigh… Gavin at RC has such an irritatingly condescending attitude…) though the Hockey Team probably are “pretty bloody good” at the science, they are also “pretty bloody good” at obfuscating reasoned argument that’s posted at RC, and “pretty bloody good” at damage control when something is published that challenges their empire.
I quote from Garth Paltridge’s Quadrant article:
“The IPCC, … has developed a highly successful immune system. Its climate scientists have become the equivalent of white blood cells which rush in overwhelming numbers to repel infection by ideas and results which do not support the basic thesis that global warming is perhaps the greatest of the modern threats to mankind.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=961
My gut tells me that there are UN political agendas undelying the IPPC’s “global warming is perhaps the greatest of the modern threats to mankind” push, and I see RC as a tool that ensures these agendas are followed and on track. And this is to the detriment of the good science these guys could probably do if they got out of politics (at which the’re pretty bloody lousy).
cheers
Arnost
Let’s try and stay on topic and be honest to the information at hand and polite. 🙂
Also please limit posts to 2-3 per 24 hours unless you have new information. And I’ve just deleted a couple of apparently deliberately misleading comments.
Absolutely no offence taken.
Maybe it’s all the hot air from AGW debate thats causing so much melt water to send glaciers skating away to the sea so fast!!
Really though, this ‘meltwater scare stuff’ is such a lot of junk science. It truely shows how bereft of ideas the pro AGW Scientists who run it are. And how easy they believe it is to fool mere laymen.
Most people who have studied Geography in Secondary School, know the mechanics of why glaciers advance or recede. Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of glacial behavior, would ‘crack their sides’ laughing at this porkie. Try another one Nexus, and full marks to Ian for demolishing it.
But the AGW fanatics are serious about it. With all that ‘grey matter’ from thousands of scientific heads, it was the best they could come up with to explain away advancing glaciers. And they really believe it!
In Nov. 2005, Greg Bourne, from the WWF addressed a luncheon in Sydney, on the evils of AGW. The Lunch was attended bya cross section of leading businessmen, academics and professionals, as well as a few farmers like me.
He spoke of how the world’s glaciers were in retreat because of AGW, and would soon disappear. When I asked him why many glaciers were advancing, he answered ‘They are not advancing, they’re just slipping away faster on meltwater’.
Got it, if glaciers recede, it’s because of GW; if they advance, it’s also because of GW!
Such is the quality of scientific input to this IPCC report.
.
Arnost a very interesting post feb 6 11.56 am with the link to TCSDAILY. May I please ask how we know what the solar sunspot and galactic radiation levels have been over the last 2 million years?
regards Toby
Sid, you are COMPLETELY unaware of what is in the IPCC report by your ongoing silly statements. Very big on the biff Sid – very scant on quoting from source.
I await your considered opinion of 4.5 Changes in Glaciers and Ice Caps at pages 4-16 to 4-20.
Here: http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/Ch04_SOD_Text_TSU_FINAL.pdf
In part it has a section which says “Although reports on individual glaciers or limited glacier areas support the global picture of ongoing strong ice shrinkage in almost all regions, some exceptional results indicate the complexity of both regional to local scale climate and respective glacier regimes.” It then give a comprehensive treatment of exceptions.
I look forward to your retraction.
Toby – I imagine by paleoproxies such an estimate of changes in cosmic ray fluxes based on 10Be measurements, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
Yorkie, it’s time to renegotiate my contract with G.M. Roper. What do you think that I’m worth? He will respect your opinion.
Toby,
I suspect that you knew that the expected answer (thanks Luke) is paleoproxies. I also suspect that the reason you asked this is to obliquely ask “so why trust solar / temp proxy correlation but not dendro / ice-core / foranimafera / temp proxy correlation supporting the IPCC position?”.
The objective answer to this is – I am not qualified to answer as I have personally not done the science and (as I am the first to admit) that statistical correlation does not equal causation – I just don’t know. Saying this, the subjective answer is that because through statistical analysis (and especially principal component analysis when dealing with multiple variables) you can “sort the chaff from the wheat” and get an indication of what (possibly) are the underlying causes. And you do real science on these…
So from my personal perspective, the ‘solar’ / temp correlation appears to be fit very well both long term (say as detailed in the TCS daily article), and short term (correlates well with the Dalton, Maunder, Spörer & Wolf temperature minimums). There also is enough of it from reputable sources that suggests that it is not total junk science. In contrast atmospheric CO2 correlates only in the last 50 years (and furthermore historically follows temperature increases suggesting that they do not drive it, but in turn are themselves a response to other temperature driven events such as a temperature driven increase in bio activity).
(I know that Luke will again point out that the IPCC science address this – but from my reading it’s more dismissive rather than inclusive.)
If this so, then why do the temperature reconstructions from IPCC show what is essentially a flat line up to the time that anthropogenic CO2 levels spiked? Is this because the solar variable is ignored / understated? And if this is so, what value can we then place in the models that project future temps if they ignore such a significant component?
So Toby, I hope this goes some way towards answering your underlying (what I presumed) question…
P.S. I note that in AR4 the longer term graph is missing and all definitive temperature related statements start from the nadir of the LIA base. And this is right because it is based on the best data we have – however the damage is already done and it is not corrected – so I have to assume that the models STILL don’t put enough weight on the solar, and that’s why I harp on it. If in TAR the historical temperature reconstruction showed the wiggles associated with at least the known & measured temperature variations over the last 300 years – I wouldn’t be here!
cheers
Arnost
Arnost – if you don’t put the solar plus aerosols + volcanoes + CO2 into the models they don’t reproduce the global temperature graph for the last 100 years.
And CO2 does more than “correlate” with temperature. If you email me at lswalker33 AT gmail.com I’ll send you more detailed information, which you can then discuss back on the blog should you choose.
Arnost thankyou for your explanations to my implied question….spot on!( and thx luke for link).
Luke i note from your link that solar activity has been increasing since the last mini ice age and is currently at or near its highs. It appears that activity fell in line with the cold period between 1940 and 1970 and then increased again ( hard to be precise from the graph but looks like a dip approx 1950). For co2 this correlation fails although there is of course teh explanation of aerosols ( plausible but very convenient!?) I have also read your RC link re solar activity and am aware that the ipcc also do not see this increased activity as a satisfactory explanation of the 0.7 c increase in temp. Sadly for me the RC explanation looses me with some of the science. Whilst the TCS article is quite easy to follow.
For a layman sun and clouds seem like a logical reasons for an explanation of climate change.
Luke if you were to try and argue the case against AGW would it be easy for you to build a case that climate is too hard to model and that the current models do not give enough importance to these things?
Do we understand enough about weather and climate to truly be able to build a climate model?….we certainly do not understand enough about economies or exchange rates to do so.
I realise we build models to help us explain things and this requires us first to have a hypothesis, we then test the model against anecdotal evidence to make the model fit the evidence. I also read your RC links explaining they really only change a few ( 10 ?) inputs of significance within clearly defined boundaries.
In looking at your wiki link on solar it is quite clear temp has gone up whilst solar activity has also risen…..and as activity is at a high so is temp. Could it be that the climate models have not placed enough weight on solar and water vapour? Do we understand enough to really be so sure of the causes and the number of inputs.
RC is so confident they are right and so condescending to any one who suggests otherwise. Does their bias blind them to alternatives?
sorry for so many questions, i m really trying to be open minded and to find a way to persuade myself the ipcc is correct……i m still hoping they aren t though!
regards Toby
Toby – things just don’t have to be one or the other – you can quite easily and we do, have a mixture of solar forcings, CO2 forcings, and aerosols (and other factors if you look at the SPM Figure SPM-2. The CO2 forcing has increased since the industrial revolution but really got going after 1950. I would suggest it eventually overwhelmed the aerosol dampening mid-century.
For the last 30 years you’ve had a signficant warming that does not have a solar output driver. The Sun’s radiative output has not changed much in that period.
Water vapour is explicitly factored but is both a forcing and a feedback. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=212
As well “correlation” you have radiometer experiments showing the greenhouse flux is about what it should be and satellite observation from space shopwing radiation windows closing as radiation is absorbed.
Such as:
Increases in greenhouse forcing
inferred from the outgoing longwave
radiation spectra of the Earth in
1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges
Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College,
London SW7 2BW, UK
NATURE |VOL 410 | 15 MARCH 2001 |www.nature.com
The evolution of the Earth’s climate has been extensively
studied1,2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures
and greenhouse gases has been established3,4. But this
relationship is complicated by several feedback processesÐmost
importantly the hydrological cycleÐthat are not well understood5
±7. Changes in the Earth’s greenhouse effect can be detected
from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8
±10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and
carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the
greenhouse effect11±13. Here we analyse the difference between
the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as
measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We ®nd
differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in
atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12.
Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a signi®cant
increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with
concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/2003GL018765, 2004
Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
Rolf Philipona
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Bruno Dürr
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Christoph Marty
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Atsumu Ohmura
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland
Martin Wild
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland
Abstract
The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth’s surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) Wm−2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) Wm−2) over eight years of measurements at eight radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm−2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) °C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m−3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm−2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L22208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020937, 2004
Greenhouse forcing outweighs decreasing solar radiation driving rapid temperature rise over land
Rolf Philipona
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Bruno Dürr
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Abstract
Since 1988, surface temperature over land in Europe increased three times faster than the northern hemisphere average. Here we contrast surface climatic and radiative parameters measured in central Europe over different time periods, including the extreme summer 2003, to pinpoint the role of individual radiative forcings in temperature increases. Interestingly, surface solar radiation rather decreases since 1981. Also, on an annual basis no net radiative cooling or warming is observed under changing cloud amounts. However, high correlation (r T = 0.86) to increasing temperature is found with total heating radiation at the surface, and very high correlation (r T = 0.98) with cloud-free longwave downward radiation. Preponderance of longwave downward radiative forcing suggests rapidly increasing greenhouse warming, which outweighs the decreasing solar radiation measured at the surface and drives rapid temperature increases over land.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624, 2005
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe
Rolf Philipona
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Bruno Dürr
MeteoSwiss, Zürich, Switzerland
Atsumu Ohmura
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland
Christian Ruckstuhl
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland
Abstract
Europe’s temperature increases considerably faster than the northern hemisphere average. Detailed month-by-month analyses show temperature and humidity changes for individual months that are similar for all Europe, indicating large-scale weather patterns uniformly influencing temperature. However, superimposed to these changes a strong west-east gradient is observed for all months. The gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to east are not related to circulation but must be due to non-uniform water vapour feedback. Surface radiation measurements in central Europe manifest anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback, enhancing the forcing and temperature rise by about a factor of three. Solar radiation decreases and changing cloud amounts show small net radiative effects. However, high correlation of increasing cloud-free longwave downward radiation with temperature (r = 0.99) and absolute humidity (r = 0.89), and high correlation between ERA-40 integrated water vapor and CRU surface temperature changes (r = 0.84), demonstrates greenhouse forcing with strong water vapor feedback.
Sorry Luke, no retraction. The whole tone of the report, is to, while detailing variations in glaciers, be dismissive of anything that goes against the general ideology of the report. Which is that global warming is to continue, and is caused by the evils of man.
On glaciers advancing, (a word they find difficult to use) this is dismissed in many ways including, local anomalies, and ‘the complexities of regional and local climate factors’.
However the main point is that this document is going to be doctored to support the SPM. So one should look at what that Summary says about glaciers, on page 7. ‘Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps’. They then get down to a bit of good simple hard science, in describing one half of the mechanics of glaciel movements. The part that describes why glaciers retreat! ‘losses due to melting (at the terminus), have exceeded accumulation (at the source) due to snowfall. Wonderful; full marks!
However, there it stops! No mention of the other half of the equation, so I’ll spell it out..’Glaciers advance when ice melt at the terminus is exceeded by snow accumulation at the source.’ Simple schoolboy stuff. But what do they waffle on about in the summary? They can’t bring themselves to use the big ‘A’ word, (advancing)! Instead there are incredible refrences to advancing glaciers as ‘thinning’, and ‘increasing flow speed of advancing drain ice’!!! Wow.
On page 10, re temperatures over the past 1300 years, the MWP is completely ignored, and yes, the ‘Hockey Stick’ is back, with more new models on show, then the numerous broomstick models on show in ‘Harry Potter’!
So Sid – now you’re whinging about “tones”. You can’t bring yourself to say “hmmm they did do a fullsome discussion after all”. You have been bleating on about them IGNORING all of this and you have been caught with your pants down.
So now you’re complaining about their tone or “language”.
Yep Hockeystick is back with new models. What exactly is wrong with them and the whole discussion.
I know – “you don’t like it”. It offends God or something? But Sid – It’s OK that you don’t like it – or you disagree with their science – but do make sure you have a good read before you start swinging and say what is in the report and what is not ! At least attack them on fair grounds not a barrage of assumptive abuse.
Sid – your comment “evils of man” shows how much this is close to to a moral issue for you. “Evils ?” – this is the sort of rhetoric that you guys love to use to polarise the debate. Far from evil I see our incredibly convenient fossil fuel technology having a “serious side effect”. Why not say “OK – and we can fix that”.
As far as global warming is set to continue – YEP – what serious scientific argument can you bring to the contrary on the balance of probabilities, except “I don’t like it”.
You’re thrashing about all over the place, Luke, instead of answering what I posted.
So, do you agree or disagree that ‘glaciers advance when losses due to melting at the terminus are exceeded by accumulation by snowfall at the source?’ Or do you prefer the ‘brilliant new IPCC sponsored waffle about increased flow speed, and drain ice slipping away fast etc.
Nope there are a number of mechanisms: Another type of movement is basal sliding. In this process, the whole glacier moves over the terrain on which it sits, lubricated by meltwater. As the pressure increases toward the base of the glacier, the melting point of water decreases, and the ice melts.
Ian you need to get the Incovenient Truth DVD which has another half hour session recorded a year after the original film was created. It presents more evidence particularly on the Greenland ice sheet upon which the number of ‘ice tremors’ has doubled in the last 5 years. Gore suggests this is further evidence the ice mass is becoming less stable.
Me I tend to adopt the precautionary principle and simply prepare my core business (farming) for expensive energy, which means I am aiming for rationing my carbon production anyway. Focus on energy efficiency and it will cost you less to operate a business and live in the future and by default you reduce your ‘greenhouse pollution’.
I now have 120 hectares of sandalwood planted (for nut production) meaning I have an annual energy equivalent saving of (120ha x 150L/ha) 18,000L of crude oil. I think people would be wise to focus on the risk of expensive oil if you have a problem with the science behind the ‘dire’ predictions of Global Warming.
Luke dishes up the Swiss radiation study again but simply will not draw the logical conclusion. That is, if Europe has increased in temperature three times faster than the northern hemisphere average over the past decade then THIS GULLIBLE WARMING BUSINESS MUST BE A EUROPEAN PROBLEM, not ours. So let them fix it by opening their markets and redistributing the wealth and the emissions to those parts of the planet that can deal with both.
No Ian being thick does not the logical conclusion that the greenhouse flux is bang on what it should be. Boom boom. Your pathetic attempt at some politico-waffle diversion is utterly irrelevant and you have completely missed the significance of these papers which shoves proof right under your nose. You might do well to ponder why the warming is greater in these areas. Therein lies the point ! But that would mean you’d have to still your mind and do what we term “reflective reading”.
Really Ian if this is as smart as your response gets to this work and its implications, I think retirement looms.
Christina Macpherson! Why not waste your time responding to the initial post on this thread. You must have a lot more time than you would have us believe since you are an anti-nuclear campaigner. I’ll tell my children to thank you when the world’s oil and gas runs out decades before it ever should have, with the added surpise of ‘no end of fossil fuel plan B’ infrastructure in place to help cushion the global shock! The truth is if you are not involved in agriculture today you have likely enjoyed the cushion in lifestyle cheap fossil fuels has afforded us over time. There’s going to be a lot more people working the land in the future if Cuba is any hint to a carbon constrained world. I’m tired of today’s green movement. You guys don’t even have a sustainable model of food production to advocate. And don’t give me organic unless you are volunteering to camp in the two thirds of global population that would starve with 100% organic food production. I’ll predict by around $90/barrel it will be totally ‘uncool’ to be seen to be a greeny! World’s gone mad with ideology. Where have the on ground workers gone?
oh my god you are sooo full of bullshit!!! haven’t you SEEN the FACTS have you even READ the IPCC summary? because if you had the information is quite clear and most of what you’re saying is nowhere near what the report states! Look around you! Australia is in drought London just had a heat wave, Japan had 10 typhoons last year beating its annual record of 7, they have had to redefine a hurricane because they have formed over places they said they would never form over because they have become more TROPICAL!
you can ignore the facts but you can’t change them and the fact is that we have been experiencing a lot of change and whether its a ‘crisis’ or not, if you want your children’s children to have water and normal temperatures to live in take what people are saying seriously because it’s better safe than sorry!