Virtually all scientists agree
that the Earth has warmed a small amount since the year 1000 or, if you
choose, since 1850, when instrumented temperature records became reasonably
accurate and distributed in key areas of the world. An increasing number
believe that any warming is so small it is indistinguishable
from the noise in the data sets, and that the data have not been properly adjusted
for such things as urban heat island effects, and instrument calibration.
This is particularly true of the global data set. Most scientists agree
that warming is better than cooling and many believe CO2 provides important
enhancements for forests and agriculture, even while also believing we should
not be fouling our nest. Our site makes every effort to present the true science
of climate change. To show the imbalance, as one reads in the popular press,
we have created a companion site that presents the evidence
for global cooling, just as the newspapers and alarmists present only the
science that supports warming. There are many reasons to be cautious about
accepting CO2 as the causative agent if there really is warming. This is highlighted
by 2 papers published in March 2008. Scafetta
and West showed that up to 69%
of observed warming is from the sun and
Ramanathan and
Carmichael show that soot has 60% of the warming power of CO2.
They claim both factors are underappreciated by IPCC.
It is generally accepted that the Earth has been much warmer than
today, for example, in the time of the dinosaurs (the mid-cretaceous
period) when the CO2 was 2 to 4 times greater than today (NOAA). More recently,
in the prior period between ice ages, just 125,000 years ago, the Earth also
was much warmer than today and the sea level much higher - by about 13
to 20 feet (4 to 6 meters) (IPCC). The primary driver of the past climate
shifts is believed to be orbital mechanics and solar variability, with some
contribution from Earth geophysical processes, such as volcanic eruptions.
It is also known that mankind's contribution to CO2 is just a small percent
(3%) of the total amount. Lastly, we know that the Earth's temperature and
the level of CO2 rise and fall roughly together, but it is not clear (not
proven) whether this is cause and effect by either variable. In a first
attempt (Hadley-chart) to use a CO2 - based model to predict temperatures,
the results are not impressive at all and are exactly opposite observations.
The cause of the temperature rise,
and therefore the future course, is settled only within the consensus
group of scientists. This is based on work of computer modelers, believing
their increasingly complex models show the cause is due to man's activities
and that there will be increasing temperatures according to how much
additional greenhouse gases are emitted. There are many other scientists
who are non-modelers, many with backgrounds as atmospheric physicists,
climatologists, engineers, meteorologists, and paleo-climatologists,
who do not believe the primary cause is mankind, although this could
be part of it. Most of these scientists believe that the sun is at the
root of the warming (if any), but that other factors are also at work.
To help separate fact from fiction, an explanation of these thoughts
is included here, along with links to these materials.
The Hadley prediction chart and the observation chart below are from
the Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) at the University
of East Anglia, which is well respected for its historical databases maintained
at the global level, and which are used in IPCC assessments. Links to similar
charts, but all slightly different with different assumptions or algorithms
to fill in missing or sparse data, are provided in the left margin.
The JMA site is recommended because it is interactive and allows you to
query the data base. For example, go to the JMA
site and
try different months, such as August and September. This will confirm
the IPCC models that predict more warming will occur during the winter
months than the summer. We don't know if this true.
This chart looks ominous until put into the context that
the average temperature for 1901-2000 is 13.9C (57.0F), so we are talking
about a change from about
13.5 to 14.3 C or 56.3 to 57. 7 F. Scientifically, we should use absolute
temperatures, which would add an additional 273 C (460 F) degrees. In this
context the increase is about 0.3 % Note on the chart that this premier data
set puts the observed global warming at 0.42 deg. C (0.8 deg F) above the
mean. As seen below, this increase since the mid 1800s is similar to that
since the year 1000, although IPCC says the present temperature is likely higher.
Greenland ice cores indicate that the start of the instrumented data (thermometers)
coincides with a cold period in the northern hemisphere and that at the
site
of a well-studied ice core, the temperature in the mid 1800s was the
coldest in 8,000 years.
For the
USA, the
trend is less pronounced. Three of the 5 warmest years occurred about 80
years ago.
NOAA/NCDC revised
data on May 1, 2007 and NASA did so in August 2007. Per
NOAA: This new data set uses mostly rural data and algorithms are
used to identify and correct extraneous factors such as urban heat island
effects.NOAA: "U.S.
and global annual temperatures are now approximately 1.0°F warmer than
at the start of the 20th century, and the rate of warming has accelerated
over the past 30 years, increasing globally since the mid-1970's at a
rate approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend. The
past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for
the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical
record." Comment:
The use of this data set has dropped the temperature increase to 1.0
deg. F (.56 C) from the "improved
data set of 2005" which had yielded a rise of 1.12 F. NOAA also
says: The global annual temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces
in 2006 was +0.54°C (+0.97°F) above average. The NASA
GISS chart of US
data is shown. Our view: It is not clear this is worth getting
excited about, given that the benefits of warming likely exceed the detriments
and that this rise may be a data artifact, or a mostly natural variation.
Many recent years are below 1900 and all are below 3 years of the 1920s
and 30S. We believe if the global data set, which
is not disclosed to enable peer review, were given equal scrutiny to
the US set, global warming would either vanish or be barely detectable. Russian
Academicians believe
major cooling is imminent.
As the number of stations (often rural)
has fallen the temperature has risen in an inverse relationship, suggesting
the Urban Heat Island effect is the
key component of any rise.
Global Warming?: Time for a Reality Check?
In the prior inter-glacial period about 125,000 years ago, there was no
summer ice at the North Pole and the sea level was 15 feet (5m) higher
than today. Is this going to happen anyway? Is our temperature just naturally
rising and if our own CO2 is helping it along, won't temperature still
rise, even when we stop breathing?
IPCC 2007 reports the prior inter-glacial warmth was driven by orbital
mechanics that are not present today. Nevertheless, this prior warmth tells
us much about what the true impacts will likely be because nearly all the
plant and animal species on Earth now were present then also.
Resource alarmists believe we will soon run out of fossil fuels. As soon
as this happens, it seems, prices will rise and the CO2 problem
will simply go away as plants clear out the CO2, that seems to be getting
ahead of their ability to remove it. For reason to prevail, as depicted in
the GCMs, somebody must know of magnificent petroleum reserves hidden from
the prophets of doom. Different parts of certain NGOs ought to get together
to get their story straight. If we were to take the IPCC approach, we would
look at the literature and note the range of projections and include all
these impacts. Doing so would show that the US Energy Information Agency
seems alone in showing a growth in oil and gas production for 20 years
(limit of projection), driven by increased prices as demand outstrips supply.
This is not unreasonable. Other energy advisors in the private sector see
a 25% drop in production in about the same period. The projection to the
end of the century ranges from sharp reductions to zero output of oil and
gas. The reserves of coal are much greater and production will peak later,
but soon, within 10 years being often proposed. For most coal producing
countries, coal output is in steady decline. Shortages will drive prices
making recovery of presently marginal sources and types of fossil fuels
feasible. But, it is all a matter of time before CO2 production from all
fossil sources declines. The upheaval to society will likely surpass even
the most extreme visions of global warming impacts. In March 2008, the
price of coal had risen 50% over sixmonths, and the upheavel
was documented by the Washington Post.
CO2 (the most important gas) has risen from 280 ppm
to 379 since pre-industrial times and its growth seems to be accelerating.
Whether it does or not is the basis for 7 assumptions about future temperatures.
Temperature increase. For the next 2 decades, 0.2
deg. C (0.4 F) temperature rise per decade, slightly higher later in
most models. The models are all different and respond differently to
different assumptions. For the end of this century, IPCC provides 7 best
estimates (for 7 assumptions) ranging from 0.6 - 4.0 C (1.1-7.2 F). Warming
is likely to lie in the range 2-4.5 deg. C (3.6-8.1 F), with a most
likely value of about 3 deg. C (5.4 F). Since the 1800s the temperature
has risen 0.76 deg.C (1.4 F). The warming is to be greater on land, in
high northern latitudes.
Sea level rise. For 6 sets of assumptions, the mid-points
are about 0.3
meters ( 1 ft.) Since 1850 sea level has risen about 200 mm (9 in.),
a little less than 2 mm/yr. More recently the rate appears to be 3.1
mm/yr, now measured by altimetry satellites. (However, we learned on 22 June 2007 that the data
were manipulated to achieve this!!)
Other attributes. Ocean acidity should rise with reduced
ph units of 0.14 to 0.35; hurricanes become more intense, perhaps less
numerous; heat waves and heavy precipitation more
frequent; less sea ice and snow cover; higher westerly winds in mid-latitudes;
more precipitation in high latitudes, less in sub-tropics inland areas.
Impact Assessments Require Trust in the Climate Forecast
My specialty is in impacts assessment (oceans, coasts, fisheries, polar
regions), not the science of climate change. However, to determine impacts
correctly, one must understand the nature of change and its likelihood
to continue. It is necessary to have trust in what the climate scientists
tell you is going to happen in the future. In the IPCC structure,
the science has been led by the UK and US scientists, and they have used
modeling as their primary tool, with some paleoclimate analysis coming
later. The Impact Assessments have been led by the Russians, who have
had an intense distrust of modeling. They viewed paleoclimatology as the
most valid tool: if you want to know what will happen when CO2 rises or
the temperature changes, they say to
look at the history of the earth. As an American, working with the Russian
teams, I was often caught in the middle of both camps. I learned to listen
to both views, and continue to do so. In particular, we learned to distrust
any science literature or impacts assessment that did not consider all
data available, whether modeling, the instrumented record back into the
1800s and/or the paleo and historical temperature reconstructions. If
the data are truncated, there is likely an agenda. Many of us have learned,
either formally, or informally, how to detect misrepresentation by statistical
treatments and graphics.
How To Tell If an Impact Assessment Is Biased
When reviewing impact assessments, look for bias. Often the authors think
only of negative changes. This is not necessarily because of personal agendas
(such as to assist animals, clean the air, or reduce the birth rate), but
is primarily due to human nature. To guard against having a biased report,
one should look for balance. Does the material articulate that things will
be different and that there are pluses and minuses? There may well be more
of one than another. Sometimes balance is reflected in the amount of text,
or graphics made to illustrate impacts and often it is reflected in the
number of negative versus positive impacts, the latter often left out completely
at the first draft stage. If missing, they tend to be only partially treated
thereafter as the authors slowly yield to reviewer comments. Examples of
balance:
Discussions of increased summer heat waves and deaths should also include
the reductions of winter cold waves and hypothermia deaths. Far more
people die of cold.
Increased costs of home air conditioning need to be discussed in the
same context as reduced heating costs
Increased mismatches between food availability in ecosystems need to also
include reduced energy demands needed to maintain body temperature,
such as for marine mammals
Discussions of coral reef bleaching need to include the expansion of coral
reef habitats
Discussions of agriculture problems such as regional droughts and the
need to change crops must include the expansion of production areas,
general increased precipitation, and CO2 fertilization
Discussions of poison ivy becoming more prolific should similarly treat
agricultural crops and forests
The IPCC Projections do not Comport with Reality
CO2 has usually been associated with temperature
rise throughout the history of the Earth. It is indeed
a greenhouse gas but it operates on a logarithmic function. The
Earth's natural processes also contribute, and remove, copious
amounts of CO2. Since plants first appeared on the Earth, they
have converted nearly all available CO2 to oxygen, fossil fuels,
and other longterm removals from the atmosphere. Today less than
4/100 of 1% (379 ppm) of our atmosphere is CO2. This pales in comparison
with other periods in Earth's history. Common IPCC scenarios rely
on an increasing supply of fossil fuels, yet we know that this
is not possible and that production will soon peak (if not already)
while prices will continue to rise. It is absolutely unrealistic
to think CO2 emissions will rise for the duration of this century.
Even China, with the largest coal reserves, is now importing coal,
causing a doubling of the global price. This will get more coal
out of the ground, quicker, but it cannot continue forever.
The projected temperature rise is unrealistic, given that the USA and
global temperatures have risen by only 1 deg F (.5 C) in 100 years
(revised,
NOAA, 1 May 2007 ), (or 150 years using the full instrumented
data set) during the height of industrial expansion. Even if all
this rise is correct, and is attributable to human
causes, it is a trivial amount in the natural variation of the Earth,
and to suggest the rise would accelerate 5 fold (IPCC best estimate)
in this century is incredible. Even after the release of the new
data set and procedures by NOAA on May 1, which addressed some of
the urban heat island issues and dropped the warming 44% (below IPCC
2007), significant other urban heat island issues still remain. There
are also issues of calibration as measurement protocols have changed,
issues about the design and placement of the temperature stations,
and even the strongly held view by many skeptics that this is a natural
rise as the Earth recovers from the Little Ice Age (circa 1500-1900).
Sea level rise may have increased
recently, but other studies have consistently shown no increase.
Even if there is an increase, it is in the order of 1 mm per
year on top of the 1-2 mm per year that has
been happening for the last century, this additional amount is
4 inches (10 cm) over the century. This is not trivial if you are in a low-lying
region wrestling with land subsidence, but it is barely more
than what would be coming anyway.
The other forecasts, such as for hurricanes, rainfall,
and snow cover,
are not significantly different than under natural variability, and
will advance more slowly than the decadal oscillations. In particular,
if ocean acidity were a problem for shell formation, it would have
shown up already in areas where there are naturally high levels of
CO2. It has not. Further, the lead hurricane expert for IPCC, Chris
Landsea, resigned over the misrepresentation of data by IPCC .
The Present and Projected Increases are Not Huge
The oceans and coastal zones, the things I know best, have been far warmer
and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change.
Marine life has been in the oceans nearly since when they were formed.
During the millennia they endured and responded to CO2 levels well beyond
anything projected. Prior temperature changes put tropical plants
and coral reefs near the poles or had much of our land covered by ice more
than a mile thick. The memory of these events is built into the genetic
plasticity of the species on this planet. IPCC forecasts are for warming
to occur faster than evolution is considered to occur, so impacts will
be determined by this plasticity and the resiliency of affected organisms
to find suitable habitats. Species mixes and distributions will change,
just as they always have. Some species will be so disadvantaged they will
go extinct and ecological niches will develop that offer opportunities
for new species to arise.
The chart is of the Paleo Record. Northern Hemisphere Annual
Temperatures from Low- and High-Resolution Proxy Data over the last 2000
Years. The red signifies only the use of the instrumented record, since
about 1860.(From
NOAA/NCDC).
In the oceans, major climate warming
and cooling is a fact of life, whether it is over a few years as in an
El Niño or over decades as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the
North Atlantic Oscillation. Currents, temperatures, salinity, and biology
change rapidly to the new state in months or a couple years. These changes
far exceed the changes expected with global warming and occur much faster.
The one degree F. rise since about 1860, indeed since the year 1000,
has brought the global average temperature from 56.6 to 57.4 degrees C.
This is at the level of noise in this rapidly changing system.
Sea level has been inexorably rising since the last glaciation lost its grip,
and temperatures rose by 10-20 degrees, a mere 10,000 years ago. It is
only some few thousand years since Georges Bank was part of the mainland.
It is now 60 miles offshore of Provincetown on Cape Cod. Its trees and
the shells of its oysters that flourished on its shores still come up in
dredges and trawls in now deep water, with the oysters looking like they
were shucked yesterday. In the face of all these natural changes, and those
we are here to consider, some species flourish while others diminish. These
considerations were well understood
in all the IPCC groups in which I participated.
I have some concerns about some few species near the margins of their suitable
habitat range. These include corals near the equator and perhaps polar
bears. But I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even
with the IPCC’s warming, than the next ice age that will likely last
over 100,000 years and bring temperatures much colder than even today.
The NOAA PaleoClimate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth,
the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were 2 to 4 times higher, and
coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then
that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated. In contrast,
the last ice age maximum, at just 20,000 years ago saw temperatures 4-7
deg. C (7.6-13.6 F) cooler than present. The one deg. F rise since the
1850s is a relatively small component. (Photo of frozen North Cove, Fairhaven
Mass. in March 2007; courtesy of OceansArt.us)
Was the Earth Warmer Before?
Sea Level Higher? CO2 Higher?
There are many frequently asked questions (FAQs), some of which are addressed
here.
IPCC: Global average sea level in the last interglacial (Eemian) period
(130,000-111,000 years ago) was likely 13 to 20 feet (4 to 6 meters) higher
than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice
core data indicate that average Arctic temperatures at that time were 5.7
to 9.5 deg. F (3 to 5 deg. C) higher than present, because of differences
in the Earth’s orbit. The Greenland ice sheet and other Arctic ice fields
likely contributed no more than 13 feet (4 meters) of the observed sea
level rise. There may also have
been a contribution from Antarctica. Note in the chart how the rate of
sea level rise is very low compared to that when the ice age wanes. (Chart/text
IPCC 2007).
NOAA: The Mid-Cretaceous period is one period in the geologic past that
stands out as distinctly warmer than today, particularly at high latitudes.
During the mid-Cretaceous Period, 120-90 million years ago, fossil
remains of plants and animals believed to inhabit warm environments,
were found at much higher latitudes. Breadfruit trees apparently grew
as far north as Greenland (55° N), and in the oceans, warm water corals
grew farther away from the equator in both hemispheres....... The mid-Cretaceous
was characterized by geography and an ocean circulation that was vastly
different from today; as well as higher carbon dioxide levels (at least
2 to 4 times higher than today). This indicates that the mid-Cretaceous
climate system was different from that of today or any we might have
in the future. Explanations evoking ocean and atmospheric circulation
patterns radically different from today have been proposed to explain
the climate of the mid-Cretaceous; however, there is no scientific
consensus on how the Mid-Cretaceous warm climate came about. Source: NOAA
Paleo Climatology program. In some ancient times when CO2 levels were
very high, ocean organisms with shells based on silica replaced those with
shells based on calcium.
During the Mid-Pliocene (about 3 million years ago) global temperatures
were substantially warmer for a sustained period and are similar to those
forecast by IPCC, with similar CO2 and sea levels of 15-25 meters (50-82
ft.) greater than today. Most of the warming was in the high northern latitudes
with little warming in the tropics. Even just 7 thousand years
ago, in the midst of the present period (Holocene) between glaciation,
the Russian Arctic, at least, was 2.5-7 deg.C (4-12 F) warmer than today
(Quartenary
Research).
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner (leading
expert on sea level): "If you go around the globe, you find no rise
anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there
is no death threat. They say there is nothing good to come from a
sea-level rise, only problems, coastal problems. If you have a
temperature rise, if it’s a problem in one area, it’s beneficial
in another area. But sea level is the real “bad guy,” and therefore
they have talked very much about it. But the real thing is,
that it doesn’t exist in observational data, only in computer
modeling." His credentials.
What Actions Should We Take to Respond to Climate Change?
We should respond prudently to the threats from climate change. These
actions should include things that make sense in their own right and which
will be important whether the Earth warms or cools in the near future.
In the distant future it is a certainty that the Earth will warm beyond
what we have today and that the next ice age is waiting in the wings, but
not for another 30,000 years or so, according to our present knowledge
of solar variability and orbital mechanics (IPCC 2007). If we are concerned
about global warming, a guiding principle is to do things that yield
a cost savings or are neutral. Overall, we should aim to reduce our cost
of goods sold and, at the consumer level, our living expenses, while at
the same time "cleaning
up our act".
What should we do now? See Ways
to Improve Energy Efficiency and Energy Sources. (For a mixture of half serious and tongue-in-cheek
ideas to halt climate change, click here.) All of us should lead
by example, and as much as possible, within the market place,
while keeping our personal freedoms we hold so dear. One way to check?
Look at your household energy consumption. It is reasonable to have it
drop one percent every two years for as long as you have been in your
house, just from household maintenance, appliance replacement and replacing
light bulbs with fluorescents when they burn out. All lights on
timers, for example, should be fluorescents. Do we adjust the thermostat
for when nobody is home? Is our shower just a little too long? Perhaps
the biggest example would be in not begetting more children than is socially
responsible.
See our list of ways to secure energy
sources, improve efficiency and alternative energies.
What Actions Should We Not Take to Respond to Climate
Change?
We must respond prudently to the threats from climate change. We live
in a global economy, much of it with lower production costs than our own
in the developed world. Whether we live in the USA, Japan, Australia, New
Zealand or the EU, we know our job losses are draining our countries, making
it more difficult to support our retirement programs, health benefits,
and even our national defense. We must be careful to not further increase
the costs of our products and services. So we --
Should not commit to actions that put us at a disadvantage, whether
it is the Kyoto protocol or some other vehicle. If we increase our taxes
on fuels (e.g., a carbon tax) that are inputs to production and services,
we will jeopardize US industry. If a taxing regime is implemented it
must separate production uses from consumption.
Should not forget that the most valuable things we have are our health,
our lives, and our family, and place them at risk by driving, or riding
in, vehicles that put them at risk in order to save energy or other costs.
If there are larger vehicles where you drive, don't get priorities confused.
Should not stop breathing even though it would be one of the most
immediate steps to slow CO2 emissions.
Should not do things without thinking. There are many ideas that may
not have merit. For example, buying local vegetables to reduce transportation
costs may actually increase energy use if the far off producer is a more
efficient, and this is likely, if its costs are lower even after getting
its goods to the local market. Another example is in using biofuels that
have a high fossil energy input in fertilizer or machinery, or planting
trees to reduce CO2, but finding out they also absorb solar radiation more
than what they replace.
What Issues Separate the Consensus and Skeptic
Scientists?
There are four elements separating consensus and skeptic scientists. Not all
elements are disputed by everyone. The elements are: (1) the amount of
temperature change since 1850; (2) whether the change is in the range of
natural variability or is attributable to humans; (3) the amount of warming
that greenhouse gases (CO2 and equivalents) will warm the Earth in the
future; and whether for the most likely scenarios, there are more losers
than winners and if the change is just different. Underlying these elements
are several issues:
Reliance on Computer Models. The sophistication
of computer models has advanced steadily over the past few years, to
the point that many scientists believe the models are able to forecast
future changes in climate. Other scientists believe that the outputs,
while interesting, do not match the reality of what happened in prior
periods of the Earth's history when the temperature was higher and
the CO2 levels 2 to 20 times higher than today. Most also believe
the Earth system is far too complex, with too many unknown drivers
and feedbacks, to enable use of models. One example is the El Niño
phenomenon, which is not reliably modeled after decades of study. Another
is that there are indications that the models are wrong in the drought
predictions in the tropics and subtropics. Paleo data shows that deserts
were wetter during prior warm periods and a May,
2007 paper in Nature points out that there is a ~6.5%
rise in precip per deg C, while the models only use 1-3%, an error
of 3X! in results. This explains better the satellite obs (NASA)
of a greener, wetter Earth. The models cannot be initialized to
current conditions and are unable to correctly incorporate the major
decadal scale vents such as the NAO and the PDO, that control our climate
in the northern hemisphere (Dr.
Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Author).
Computer models are too coarse. Everyone knows the
models should have finer resolution, but there are computational constraints
and staffing constraints to develop models at the regional or even
local scale. The skeptics argue that this is part of the overstating
of impacts. for example. a mountainous area the size of a large country
may have an average height that is barely above sea level. The rain-producing
mountains that intercept sea-breezes do not exist in the model and
the result of the simulation understates future rainfall for the region.
There is also a problem in the use of average temperatures in that
they do not capture the difference in density and humidity.
The models do not seem correct. The warming of the
ocean, the warming of the land, the rise of sea level are all coming
in below projections, while much more rain is falling, as the time
series grows and even as the models are "adjusted" to reflect
the observations, casting their basic premises into doubt. On 22 June,
2007 (Dr. Nils-Axel
Mörner) we learned that data were manipulated to
create an acceleration in sea level rise. Warming should be detected
through an acceleration in the rate of rise and that rise should slow
the Earth's rotation. Neither has occurred.
Attribution of the warming trend to human activities. The
consensus scientists believe their models can replicate reasonably
enough the contribution of human-caused greenhouse gases and thus they
can be used to estimate future warming. The other scientists believe
this is not the case. The reasons vary among the scientists, but the
most common ones are: CO2, the target gas, pales in its abilities to
impact temperature compared to water vapor and solar variability (not
just radiation but also magnetic flux (which controls cosmic radiation
and cloudiness) and orbital mechanics). Some scientists believe that CO2
is actually a cooling gas and we need to look elsewhere. Additional
factors that some skeptics believe are not adequately considered are
the natural contributions of CO2 and other gases that dwarf the human
component and the impact of cosmic radiation on the formation of clouds.
Also, it is not clear to some scientists whether CO2 increases lead
to warming or whether warming leads to CO2 increases. To many skeptics,
the over valuation of CO2 as a causative agent, particularly in light
of it having a logarithmic function that decreases impact with the
amount of CO2, is an indication of a policy agenda meant to deter the
use of fossil fuels, not understand climate change.
This warming may be natural variability. While most
scientists believe that the observed warming is real, some believe
that it is so slight that we can't be sure that instrument calibration
problems and urban heat island
impacts have been dealt with adequately.
If not, it has not been for lack of effort. The problems are immense.
For example, in 1999, Los Angeles moved its data station 4 miles to
an area outside the city that is lower in elevation and nearer the
coast, with cooler, drier, and less extreme conditions. Even when a
location has not moved, the rising temperatures may reflect the growth
of a community, or land use changes, around it. Calibration is daunting
for calibrating the instruments themselves. An example is relating
sea surface temperatures that were derived from a thermometer placed
in a bucket of water pulled from the ocean in 1860, with a continuous
stream of data taken from a ship's water inlet much deeper in the water
in the 1960s, data from drifting and moored buoys transmitted by satellite
in the 1980s, and with satellite data from the very top layer of the
surface since the 1970s. Perhaps only time will really
tell. Many skeptic scientists believe that the trend line turned in
1998 for the present cycle, while many consensus scientists are quick
to point out that we are still having temperatures above average, and
in turn, the skeptics claim that there is no real way to compute a
global average. Lastly, the best data are from the USA. According to
NOAA, 2006 was the warmest year in U.S. records, almost the same as
1936. The skeptics say that if only rural sites are used, the temperature
actually falls, indicating that in the US, and probably the world,
what has been measured is the growth of cities and the heat they absorb
and generate; there is no warming.
This warming is largely recovery from the Little Ice Age. The
natural rate of increase of about 1 deg F (0.5 C) since the LIA (~1500-1900)
has not been removed from the IPCC estimations of temperature rise. The
CO2 contribution is negligible or non-existent because there is no credible
way to compensate for the sharp cooling from 1940 to the 1970s in the
face of the rapid growth of CO2, nor the similar (to present) rise from
1920 to 1940 in the absence of rapid CO2 growth. See for example, Is
the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?:
A possible cause of global warming by
Syun-Ichi Akasofu (7 May 2007) . Another difficulty with accepting
the temperature rise at face value is the evidence that the start of
the use of thermometers in about 1850 comes at the same time as the emergence
from the coldest period in 8,000 years.
The
rate of warming is dangerous. Not so, say the
skeptics, pointing out that the rate of warming from 1980 to 1998 has
been seen before, and for many parts of the Earth such temperature
changes are recurrent, such as when the Atlantic and Pacific and ENSO
(el Niño) oscillations change state.
Sensationalist press not counteracted. The fact
that Antarctica is warming in the area nearest Chile gets heralded,
but the IPCC science documents show that, as a whole, Antarctica is
stable. Flooding of coasts and cities, attributed to warming, is not
countered by the IPCC, even though its science document shows no discernible
acceleration in the rate of rise, a solid indicator of warming and
necessary for prior sea level projections.
Warming Impacts. Many scientists in the consensus
group believe that the IPCC estimates of temperature rise are accurate
and the impact from these changes will be bad for the Earth, its
ecosystems, and its people. Other scientists, even if accepting the IPCC
forecasts, believe that the Earth was warmer before and with higher CO2
levels and that these were among the most ecologically productive periods
in terms of speciation and biomass. This contrasts sharply with periods
of glaciation, the ice ages, that come and go whether humans have any
influence or not. A case in point is my
testimony which shows the paleo record tells us
that corals were very expansive when the Earth was warmer and
CO2 much higher, whereas 3 other
scientists testified that corals were
in grave danger, even now, due to the high temperatures and acidification
of the ocean caused by CO2.
An Average Wrong Answer. The IPCC reliance on emission
scenarios, and then presenting all the outputs of temperature
rise and impacts as if they had somewhat equal probability, leads to
an average wrong answer and exaggerated impact assessments.
Influence of the Sun. Scientists affiliated with the
Consensus believe solar influences are not important to the recent warming
and that are actually in the wrong direction (See
recent paper by Lockwood and Frohlich). Other
scientists believe that the analysis is flawed and that the actual mechanisms
through which the Sun affects Earth climate were not used in the analysis
(for
example, Whitehead).
These issues and many more are hotly debated on consensus
and skeptic websites and blogs. Some representative Consensus and Skeptic sites
with at least a reasonable amount of scientific basis are linked on the
left navigation column. One constant debate is the importance of undersea
and terrestrial volcanoes in contributing CO2 and the cooling effect of
the ash cast into the sky. The photo shows Mount Tungurahua active in July
2007. Click on Mount
Tungurahua for larger version and text Source: www.OceansArt.us.
What are the views of the IPCC Process by the Skeptics?
Very Few Scientists. Few scientists are actually involved
in writing the materials, perhaps a few dozen. Usually there is one real
leader, a Chair or Co-Chair and 2 or 3 titular co-chairs that often are
present to provide balance for the developing nations. Because of skill
or language barriers they may not be greatly involved. Lead
Authors are usually involved in just one piece of the section or
chapter. These few people, depending on the breadth of the chapter, prepare
the first and subsequent drafts and the Executive Summary that feeds
into the SPM, long before the draft chapters have been through national
reviews. Even here, the Co-Chairs decide which inputs are to be accepted,
or make recommendations that usually are sustained, during plenary sessions.
Yes, thousands of scientists review the IPCC documents, but usually only
those parts that impinge on their own expertise, which is usually quite
narrow.
Overstatement of Risks and Impacts. We know from the
paleo record that the Earth routinely goes through climate swings greater
than IPCC projects, yet IPCC does not go far enough in correcting overstatements
in its own documents and in those of the press. There will be winners and
losers, but always we hear only of the losses. Balance is missing. Things
will be different, but not necessarily worse. For example, sea level rise
has been happening since the end of the last ice age, and there is little
evidence of any significant acceleration, yet most people believe that global
warming will flood all coastal areas. The areas may flood, just as Georges
Bank is now deep beneath the Atlantic, if this unusually long period in
between ice ages continues and we see warmth as great as the last interglacial,
but flooding won't be caused by human-derived warming, although it may contribute.
Another example is the great numbers of reports about Antarctica warming,
yet the latest IPCC
document shows that there
is no evidence of any change in temperature or ice coverage.
Too Many People are Excluded or Their Input not Valued. This
includes astronomers and geologists. Some times the exclusion is real or
just perceived. Over time this tends to make the inside group of IPCC scientists
more uniform in their beliefs while adding to the anti-IPCC consensus.
Pressure is Placed on People Who Disagree with
the IPCC Majority. This
is evidenced by the attempted removal of at least 4 US state climatologists
whose Governors have decided that conformance to the consensus view is
required. The Policy
Statement of their Association states
that the natural variability in the
climate system is very strong, that we lack the ability to predict greater
than about 10 years into the future, and it is essential to collect data
necessary to know if the climate is changing.
The process leading to the Summary for Policy
Makers is too Political.
The Skeptics have more trouble with the SPM than the underlying reports.
It is not too affectionately called "SPAM". Even though the
Scientists are present during finalization, and have sufficient authority
to make sure they can live with it, many of the national delegations
work to accomplish their policy objectives through the report. Some
Skeptics have responded by developing an Independent SPM, based on
the same underlying IPCC science documents, but with very different
interpretations. An excellent report by the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin sheds light on the process. It
is recommended reading. An excerpt follows from their report of the approval
meeting of the IPCC SPM for WG1 (2007):
"Participants discussed whether it would be clearer to state
that warming of the climate system is “unequivocal” or “evident.”
Participants agreed to state that warming is “unequivocal.” Canada,
with Germany and Switzerland, suggested adding a reference to the
accelerating trend of warming. China, New Zealand, and South Africa,
supported by the Coordinating Lead Authors, opposed this, given the
possibility of decadal variability, and the reference was not included
in this section.
On text noting high decadal variability in Arctic
temperatures, Canada, supported by Norway, suggested removing a specific
reference to a warm period observed from 1925 to 1945. The Coordinating
Lead Authors explained that “climate skeptics” often point to this
warm spell to question the IPCC for not acknowledging such warm spells.
Participants agreed to keep the reference."
An excellent review of the issues and how the "consensus" has made
a mistake is presented in an excellent
article (written by Bob Foster) of sufficient quality to be included among the British briefing
documents on Her Majesty's Treasury website.
What Does the Consensus
Say About the Skeptics?
On Somebody's Payroll. Many press
articles have been written to say that
scientists who disagree do so because they are being supported by
oil companies or some other group with a stake in the outcome. The
counter argument is that most consensus scientists have funding derived
from government or university sources that are directly based on
public concern and fear. It is most likely that nearly all scientists
say and write that which they do because they believe
it to be true. Money, whether a Federal grant, or a corporate grant,
will flow to support an avenue of inquiry believed in the grantor's
interest. Science is not bought in advance (usually).
Not
Mainstream Scientists. The
skeptics are
discredited often by allegations that they are
not doing work that is germane to the climate change
work, or that they are inexperienced. The countering
allegation is that since one or more of any reviewers
for the main scientific journals are likely to be members
of the consensus, any work showing the consensus
view is wrong cannot be published in a primary
journal. One fact is that many of the mainline
skeptics are full professors involved in climate
research at major universities.
Disproportionate
Press Coverage. Consensus
scientists
and their
allies decry
all the attention
the Skeptics
get, when
they are
so few. Perhaps
they are
perceived
to be so
few because
Consensus
people do
not see them
in the room
and do not
realize how
numerous
they are
becoming.
Conversely
the Skeptics
have reached
critical
mass and,
not seeing
any consensus
members in
their own
midst, see
themselves
as the true
consensus.
Of course,
the press
loves a controversy.
It, along
with fear,
are two primary
attributes
that expand
the audience.
If anyone
believes
the Skeptics
are some
tiny minority,
try using
your favorite
search engine
to search
for climate
skeptics. The
search will
show dozens
or hundreds
of pro and
con Skeptic
arguments
and web sites.
It will show
some of the
hype and
hysteria
on all sides
of the climate
arguments,
as well as
legitimate
scientific
sites and
discussion
forums.
Is Global Warming Bad ?
The IPCC 2007 reports suggest there will
be more losers than winners.The
IPCC process includes
many unlikely scenarios.
These worst-case estimates
also have associated
impacts, from benign to worst-case.
Thus we get the 5% worst impacts
that have a 5% chance of happening
(a combined 0.25% likelihood) equally
discussed with benign changes
that are reasonable to expect. By
the time summaries are written,
and press releases, only the bad
effects are presented. This
leads to a gross exaggeration
of the problems.
Global
Warming Will Actually Have More Winners then Losers. Throughout
the history of human life,
the Earth's livability has always been better
when the climate has been warmer than cooler.
Human populations have
expanded the most when the Earth warmed and turned greener,
whether during the middle
ages or during the last 2 decades. Whether it is a fish
in the ocean, a shrimp
in an aquaculture pond, or a bean on a vine,
it will grow faster when
it is warmer, all things being equal. Humans will be
quick to take advantage
of a warmer climate and to adjust if it gets too
warm in an area. More crops
grow where it is warm or hot than in frozen ground,
and CO2 is a primary food
of plants - basic facts that seem forgotten.
Even now, NASA satellites
show that the Earth has become 6% greener as
the world has warmed over
the past 20 years: "Our
study proposes
climatic changes as
the leading cause for
the increases in plant
growth over the last
two decades,
with lesser contribution
from carbon dioxide
fertilization and forest
re-growth"
. Further, a May 2007 Nature paper shows that precipitation increases 6.5% per
degree C rise, not the 1-3% used in models, making the Earth 3X wetter than models
forecast. Deserts, as is known for prior warm periods, will be wetter, not drier.
In the warm coastal farm lands near Guayaquil, Ecuador (near the equator) are
many greenhouses, and in the cooler elevations, they are everywhere. This makes
it clear how bad warming might be for agriculture.
More people die from the cold than from
heat and no place on Earth is too hot for humans. In
Europe, more than 200,000 people die from excess heat while 1.5
million people die from excess cold (Source: Lomborg
2007 ),
a point left out of most assessments. For the US, the net lower death count from
global warming in 2050 is
estimated at 174,000 per year (Citation in Lomborg
2007).
What About Polar Bears and Arctic Warming and Antarctic Cooling?
Polar bears have endured warmer
periods than are forecast by IPCC. They evolved
into their present form some 700,000 years
ago (or 100,000
years ago) (or 200,000
years ago) (or before
the beginning of the last interglacial) and their molars
changed some 10,000 to 20,000 years
ago. Importantly, polar bears were likely present in some
final version of their present form, during the last interglacial
(130-110,000 years ago), as
late 2007 research indicates, when there was virtually
no ice at the North Pole and average Arctic temperatures at
that time were 5.7 to 9.5 deg. F (3 to 5 deg. C) higher than
present (IPCC, 2007). This date of evolution
should be determined factually, as a first step, before taking
action. If polar bears survived the past interglacial, as late
2007 findings indicate, the present warming may be of little
consequence. In any case, the 20 polar bear populations need
to be looked at individually, in terms of their threats and
adaptability, and the management systems that govern their
conservation.
The Arctic reaches record low ice coverage in 2007. The
press trumpeted this every few days in the summer of 2007. Further
down the page on the monitoring sites of major institutions was
some additional news. Antarctic ice coverage at the same time
was at or above the highest levels ever recorded. For example,
see the University
of Illinois Cryosphere Program. In each case,
reliable measurements date only from the arrival of satellite
data in the 1970s, another usually omitted fact. However, since
the Northwest Passage was open to sailing vessels in 1903-1905
(Gjøa/Roald Amundsen), and again in 1940-42 and 1944
(St. Roch), it is possible this recent
reduction in Arctic ice is not an indicator of warming. Further,
Science
(27 September 2007) reports that the loss of Antarctic
ice triggered the last warming and eventual emergence from the
last ice age, raising the question of whether the current expansion
of Antarctic ice coverage is sufficient to trigger the next ice
age?
Is CO2 becoming
so dense we cannot breathe?
There is no threat to our ability to breathe.
Oxygen and nitrogen still make up 99% of our
atmosphere. Methane, CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses make up
a minuscule part of what we breathe, but they have important abilities
to make the Earth warmer. The gases in the atmosphere
(in order) by percent are:
Harper’s, September 1968 - The Coming Ice Age (cover story)
Will the expanding Antarctic ice cause a new ice age?Science
(27 September 2007) reports that the loss of Antarctic ice
triggered the last warming and eventual emergence from the last
ice age. Will the current expansion of Antarctic ice coverage be
sufficient to trigger the next ice age? The Arctic reached record
low ice coverage in 2007, but
Antarctic ice coverage at the same time was at
or above the highest levels ever recorded. In each case,
reliable measurements date only from the arrival of satellite data
in the 1970s, another usually omitted fact. Since the Northwest
Passage was navigated by sailing vessels in 1903-1905 (Gjøa/Roald
Amundsen) , and again in 1940-42 and 1944 (St. Roch), this
recent reduction in Arctic ice may not be an indicator of warming.
Antarctic Temperature Chart from CO2Science.org.
The Antarctic
ice sheet continues at a high level, but not enough to raise the total ice
coverage trend at the global level. It is still at about the lowest point
since monitoring began in 1979. (Nov 2007)
The wind caused the Arctic ice loss.NASA
scientist Son Nghiem says "The winds causing this trend
in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure
that began at the beginning of this century," (Oct 2007)
has fallen the temperature has risen in an inverse relationship, suggesting
the Urban Heat Island effect is 
understood
in all the IPCC groups in which I participated.
I have some concerns about some few species near the margins of their suitable
habitat range. These include corals near the equator and perhaps polar
bears. But I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even
with the IPCC’s warming, than the next ice age that will likely last
over 100,000 years and bring temperatures much colder than even today.
The NOAA PaleoClimate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth,
the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were 2 to 4 times higher, and
coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then
that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated. In contrast,
the last ice age maximum, at just 20,000 years ago saw temperatures 4-7
deg. C (7.6-13.6 F) cooler than present. The one deg. F rise since the
1850s is a relatively small component. (Photo of frozen North Cove, Fairhaven
Mass. in March 2007; courtesy of 
have
been a contribution from Antarctica. Note in the chart how the rate of
sea level rise is very low compared to that when the ice age wanes. (
