Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I would agree, if the temperature readings from 1880 were the only basis for today's climate models. The idea is, of course, ridiculous.

Temperatures (and a lot more) from past centuries have been, again and again, verified by various methods: drilling down through glaciers, sediments, upland moors; analyzing gas concentrations or the accumulation of pollens, looking at tide levels, at annual rings of trees, etc.

And there's a lot more data that goes into the models, like satellite data, measurements of GHG levels, of solar radiation....

If you think climate models are being calculated by looking at an old set of scribbled down temperatures, and then going like "darn, it's getting warmer", I'd say that you are most likely mistaken.

Monday, 22 January, 2001, 16:53 GMT

The IPCC claims the science of global warming is beyond question
(others say) Global warming 'not clear cut'
By BBC News Online's Jonathan Amos

Excerpt


Scientists sceptical about the nature or pace of global warming challenged the "consensus" being presented on the issue on Monday by researchers working for the United Nations.

There are huge uncertainties to do with the science that goes into the computer models that predict the future

Prof David Unwin, Birkbeck College, London
Meeting in Shanghai, China, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the Earth would warm up in the coming 100 years faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years. And they pointed the finger of blame squarely at human activities, in particular fossil-fuel burning.

The panel's Working Group One said computer models were predicting temperature rises of between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius over the coming century and sea level rises that could be measured in tens of centimetres. It said there was now little doubt about what was happening to the planet's climate and governments should act to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

But several scientists outside the IPCC criticised what they described as the "arrogance" of the UN body, insisting that the evidence for global warming was still far from certain.

Climate uncertainties

Sir John Houghton, the former UK Met Office chief who co-chaired the Shanghai meeting, said that, in his view, there could no longer be any doubt about the human effect on climate.



Some believe indirect solar effects have a bigger impact than the IPCC will concede

"The evidence is certainly sufficiently strong for countries to take action based on what we've said," he told BBC News Online. "I think there are very few scientists who'd disagree with the IPCC. And most of those who do disagree have not published much," he added.

However, the prominent global warming sceptic Professor Philip Stott, from the University of London, was quick to disagree. He said recent research had damaged the credibility of the IPCC and its climate predictions.

"In the last month alone, serious scientific studies have undermined the whole basis of these predictions, with the temperature over the oceans seen as exaggerated by up to 40% and the very relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature questioned."

Political response

He added: "The IPCC models and correlations are not new; they are re-cycled 'old hat'. It is essentially a political response to the collapse of The Hague climate talks."

Professor Stott said computer models presented various "stories" or scenarios and people should not see them as outcomes that were bound to happen.

"There are over 40 such stories; inevitably, of course, the media selects the very worst storyline," he said.

His concerns were echoed by Professor David Unwin, an environmental scientist at Birkbeck College, London. He said the IPCC was guilty of glossing over many of the uncertainties in climate science.

"These uncertainties are never really made explicit," he said. "The IPCC will give you error bars but there are huge uncertainties to do with the science that goes into the computer models that predict the future."

He said the models had progressively drawn back from the real doomsday scenarios of a few years ago as climate processes had become better understood and incorporated into calculations. "And in my view, and in the view of many other scientists, this refinement has a long way to go."

Weather hazards

Professor Unwin said the IPCC, in becoming "fixated on the control of carbon dioxide as a measure to tackle global warming", had allowed other issues such as energy conservation and cleaner air to slip off the agenda.

"And it has made light of all the other levers that society could pull to aid and adapt its way out of the problem that we may or may not have. All the social science evidence on weather hazards shows that, by and large, trying to modify the hazard isn't a strategy that works.



There is a lobby which makes money out of global warming promotion and research, and governments around the world collect taxes on the back of it all

Piers Corbyn, weather forecaster
"I would like the IPCC to stress the steps that society could take to adapt better to the consequences of global warming - and that includes managed retreat from the shoreline, not building on flood plains, care with water conservation and scheduling, and so on."

Piers Corbyn of Weather Action, a company that provides long-term forecasts to UK industry, claimed the IPCC had quite simply got it wrong. Corbyn, like a large group of solar scientists, believes the UN body has underestimated some of the indirect effects of the Sun on the Earth's climate.

"Particles and magnetic effects from the Sun are the decisive influence that controls world temperatures," he said. "The evidence can be seen in the graphic representation of geomagnetic activity plotted alongside world temperatures. The two correlate very closely.

"I think there is a political agenda here. There is a lobby which makes money out of global warming promotion and research, and governments around the world collect taxes on the back of it all. If governments are serious, they should support research into solar effects."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1131275.stm

Old Europe--That is the lamest excuse I have ever read. Why don't you just admit that you cannot rebut my evidence. I will, against my better judgment, since this difficult topic cries out for explicit data and precise meanings,give you a Kindergarten explanation. If you doubt that any of my points are not correct, please say so and then I will enlarge on them.

Point 1- The US Senate voted against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol 95-0 in 1997 because countries they knew would cause a great deal of pollution ,( China and India) were classified as "developing countries" and the Senators did not wish to cripple the US Economy for a scenario which was not proven( See Foxfyre's excellent post)

2. There is evidence that climate has always changed and that indeed the Medieval Period had temperatures higher than those at present, followed by declining temperatures --all before the steam engine was invented.

3. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report which warned that any estimates of the magnitude of future warming must be regarded as tentative.

4. There was a strong surface warming between 1890 and 1940 followed by a pronounced cooling and warnings of a catasthropic ice age , then rising temperatures from the 1970's to today. CO2 emissions were insignificant in the early 20th century, yet substantial warming occurred anyway.

5. Warming has been observed on the surface of the earth but this warming is higher than the warming detected by satellite measurements. Satellite measurements show a very slow warming and the surface temperatures may be tainted by the Heat Island Effect. Records of temperatures of cities going back a hundred years show temperatures in some LARGE cities rising while other cities not more than a hundred miles away had steady or even falling temperatures

6. The largest source of uncertainty about climate sensitivity is that there is an assumption that water vapor will amplyfy the small bit of warming expected from increase of CO2. This assumption has not been proven.

7. The Academy stated that computer models are imperfect. Without computer modeling there is no evidence of "global warming".

8. There may indeed be other explanations for temperature changes, The Sun is as magnetically active as it has been for 400 years. This must be taken into account.

Each one of the points above deserves a great deal more explanation. I gave it in my other posts and can give it again. I gave you the Kindergarten version, Old Europe. Is it enough? Do you understand it now or do you need more data?

Mortkat,

even though this thread runs under the political forums, I think we should look at the underlying data from an objective point of view. I admit to not being a climatologist, but I suspect that neither you are one. I would therefore appreciate it if you would cut back on the insults over this issue.




sure.



Here we are clearly discussing the political dimension. Let me ask you this: when the decision to invade Iraq based on the existance of WMD and Saddam's connection to Al Qaida was made and consequently, some 200,000,000,000 US$ (probably more) were spent, wasn't that a decision that would "cripple the US Economy for a scenario which was not proven"? It's being done all the time in the course of political decision-making, and often enough has little connection with the actual facts either way.




Yes, there is evidence that climate has always changed. Yes, we know about the Medieval Warm Period. Now, I was trying to find a source which you might accept as unbiased and found the United States Department of Commerce (or, more specific, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). This excerpt is from their website:



(-> NOAA website)




Yes, they did, and no serious scientist would suggest anything else. That statement includes, obviously, estimates about dramatic future warming as well as estimates about insignificant future warming.



Let's look at the data: between 1890 and 1940, CO2 concentration went up from 290 ppm to 310 ppm (CO2 levels for that time are reconstructed from ice core data).

Global average temperatures went up by 0.2° Celsius between 1890 and 1940. It has to noted that between 1890 and 1910, temperatures still decreased by another 0.2°C, and then went up by 0.4°C between 1910 and 1940. This is important, because it is reasonable to assume a delayed reaction in temperature increase rather than an instant reaction in the same year, for example.

Average temperatures then went down until 1950 (0.05° to 0.1°), went up again to reach the 1940 averages by 1960, went down again, and haven't stopped increasing since the late 1970s.



I find it misleading to talk about a "pronounced cooling" between 1940 and 1970, though.




Well, you're mixing a lot together here. Yes, there are problems when comparing satellite data with surface measurements. You cited Dr. Christy on this problem, so let's hear what he has to say on this topic:



As you cited Christy before, I believe you would trust in what he says. So, Mortkat, if "satellites and thermometers agree almost perfectly" over land areas, wouldn't that absolutely contradict the "Heat Island Effect" theory?




I have to admit that I don't have a clue of what you are talking about. How does water vapor amplify the effect of CO2?




And without Geiger counters there is no evidence of "radiation". I'll choose to believe in the theory that radiation exists, though.

But seriously, what point are you trying to make here?




Yes. This must be taken into account, and I believe it is.




Frankly, I need more data. I especially need a kindergarten version on how water vapor amplifies the effects of CO2, but feel free to expand on the other points as well. I would appreciate if you could do so WITHOUT SHOUTING and without throwing insults, though.

Go ahead.

Surely the argument is over. The world is indeed round.

this from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency:

The 20th century was the hottest century on record. The temperature is currently rising by between 0.1 and 0.4°C per decade, increasing more over land than over sea.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sums up the cause of the climate change we have witnessed over the last 50 years by stating that it is impossible to explain other than as the result of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Annual emissions of these gases are still on the rise.

....................................................................

Why would anyone want to lie about the 20th century being the hottest on record? Why would the IPCC use such strong language as "impossible to explain.....result of anthropogenic emissions...." unless they meant it. Were they just doing it to annoy George Bush?

The debate on Global Warming has moved on. Climate change deniers are left behind like flat earthers. One has to suspect their motives.

The land mass does not retain heat the way water does. The heat is directly reflected while the water absorbs the heat and water vapor is formed and clouding may also obscure some of the sunlight. The relatively cooler air over the water may rush toward the land so the ocean air is in circulation. Therefore ocean temperatures do not provide a linear correlation with satellite temperatures.

Old Europe- Really- You throw statistics out and give no references. Do you really expect me to accept them? Do you really think I take the IPCC's findings as the last word?

You talk about Political Decision Making of the US Senate( I am sorry but that is the way we work it in the US, unlike some of the Socialist Countries in Europe). Are you telling me that the findings of the IPCC are not mired in Politics? Who funds the IPCC?

I am asked to accept the table which you say you got from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration while you REFUSE to accept the data I gave you from United States Historical Climatology Network showing that while some SURFACE temperatures in US cities have increased after 70 years of record keeping, cities nearby have remained stable or actually decreased. The Heat Island Effect shows that the so-called increase in world temperatures may be materially affected by the Heat Island Effect.

I do not know who runs the agency you mention but if you have any scientific background at all, you know that your "chart" showing that the Medieval Period was not warmer is not correct. I am sure that the findings of the NAS trump your findings.

I will be specific with other evidence.

http://capmag/com/article.asp?ID=478

quote-

"The pattern of frequent and rapid changes in climate during the Holocene indicates that the warming of the last 100 years is not a unique event and is thus not an indication of human impact on the climate,as is frequently claimed"

"Examples are GEOGRAPHICALLY WIDESPREAD AND NUMEROUS. In Central Argentina during the early part of the millenium, glaciers retreated and the plains region turned warm and humid. During the Little Ice Age, glaciers advanced and the plains became cooler and semi-arid."

"Study of the cultivation of subtropical citrus trees and herbs showed that Northeast China had a temperature about l C higher than today between 1100 and 1200 AD. That same region felt the chill of the Little Ice Age between 1550 and 1750 AD and that period was the coldest of the last 2000 years, according to oxygen isotope measurements in peat cellulose."


The temperature in the interior of South Africa was higher by 3 C during the Little Optimum and lower by 1 C during the LIttle Ice Age compared with today based on measurements of carbon and oxygen isotopes in stalagmites."

Borehole measurements into the Greenland ice sheet indicate a temperature 1 C higher around 1000 AD and 1 C cooler between 1500 and 1850 AD."

In Western Europe, documentary evidence decsribes the moderation of harsh winters from 900 to 1300 relative to those from 1300 to 1900. During the Little Optimum, atypical subtropical plants such as olive tress grew in the PO valley of Northern Italy and fig trees near Cologne Germany."

THE FACTS ARE SIMPLE. THE LITTLE OPTIMUM AND LITTLE ICE AGE WERE REAL. THEY WERE ALSO WIDESPREAD OVER THE GLOBE.

(The writers of this piece were Sallie Baliunas PHD and Willie Soon, PHD, both experts in the Sun's effect on earth's climate)



I am delighted that you agree that the findings of the National Academy of Sciences which I referenced earlier must be regarded as "Tentative".

And you would have a country's Economy dismantled because of this "tentative" information while the countries of China and India( "developing nations" you know) are exempt from the strictures of the Kyoto Protocol. I hope that you are aware that the failure of the Kyoto Protocol to include China and India under the terms of Kyoto were one of the main reasons that the Senate of the United States made, as you called it, the "Political" decision not to ratify Kyoto. Of course, the decision not to include China and India under Kyoto had NO POLITICAL UNDERTONES------Really!!!!!!


The findings of the National Academy of Sciences do not agree with your charts for which you give no reference.

If you will reference www.nap.edu/catalog.10139.html?onpi_notebooks_060801

you will find evidence that states that there was indeed a strong surface warming between the 1890's and the 1940's followed by a pronounced cooling. There were indeed warnings of a fierce ice age after 1940 by some of the same climatolgists whonow claim large increases in warming.


I am very much afraid that Dr. Christy is in error on this topic. You give no source for the chart.

According to Dr. Roy Spencer, Senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and a world renown expert on satellite-based temperature-monitoring work, stated that the "surface temperature data using land and ocean based thermometers show a warming trend of o.15C per decade. By contrast, weather baloon temperature data show a cooling trend of -0.07, -0.04, or -0.02 DEPENDING ON WHICH RESARCH GROUP IS ANALYZING WHICH WEATHER BALLOON DATA. Recently corrected satellite data has produced a slight warming trend of +0.01 C per decade."

AS you can see, Old Europe,"satellites and thermometers DO NOT agree almost perfectly according to Dr. Spencer. In fact, Dr. Spencer adds:

"Detecting ANY global warming increase of 0.2 or 0.35 per decade is difficult. THE RATE OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE ASSOCIATED WITH DAILY WEATHER IS ABOUT 100,000 TIMES LARGER THAN THE PREDICTED 0.35F PER DECADE GLOBAL WARMING SIGNAL"



and, Geiger counters are imperfect but radiation exists so I will continue to believe in Geiger Counters and in computer models,says Old Europe.

What point am I trying to make?

I already made it in my previous post which you may have forgotten or not read. I believe in Geiger Counters and Computer Models too. I stated that it is very difficult for computer models to really measure accurately. I would never say they cannot measure. I would never say Geiger Counters cannot detect radiation.

Again---

"An ideal computer model. however, would have to track five million parameters over the surface of the earth and through the atmosphere, and INCORPORATE ALL RELEVANT INTERACTIONS AMONG LAND, SEA, AIR, ICE AND VEGETATION. ACCORDING TO ONE RESEARCHER, SUCH A MODEL WOULD DEMAND TEN MILLION TRILLION DEGREES OF FREEDOM TO SOLVE."

NAS puts it this way-Climate Models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty in interpreting their answers"

My point? Computers do work, so do Geiger Counters but the task of SIMULATING THE CLIMATE TO FIND HOW IT WILL REACT TO EACH NEW STIMULUS OF CO2 IS PROBABLY BEYOND THE REACH OF COMPUTER MODELS IF EXACTNESS IS A KEY RESULT DESIRED.

Then you mention that you need more information about "water vapor".

As I said, The computer simulations all assume that water vapor will amplify the small bit of warming expected from the increase of Co2 concentration in the air.

Richard Lindzen, the Alfred Sloan Professor of Metereorolgy at MIT and one of the professors on the NAS panel indicates that cirrus clouds may act as thermostats and as the earth warms, clouds adjust in their surface coverage, shedding more energy back in space. BUT ALL THE COMPUTER MODELS ASSUME NO CHANGE IN CLOUD ACTIVITY FROM WARMING. In fact, Lindzen believes that doubling carbon dioxide would increase temperatures AS MUCH AS 7 DEGREES F, THE CLOUD EFFECT ALONE COULD HOLD THAT INCREASE DOWN TO LESS THAN 2.5 DEGREES F.

Lindzen's theory is sketched out in detail in

http://cobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/

I will quote one line from the seven page report-

"If you double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but don't have any feedback within the system, you only get about 1 degree of warming( averaged over the entire globe) But climate models predict a much GREATER GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE OF THE POSITIVE FEEDBACK OF WATER VAPOR. YET THESE MODELS ARE MISSING POTENTIALLY ANOTHER NEGATIVE FEEDBACK( THE NEGATIVE IRIS) WHICH CAN BE ANYWHERE BETWEEN A FRACTION OF A DEGREE AND 1 DEGREE--THE SAME ORDER OF MAGNITUDE AS THE WARMING"(THE NET RESULT WOULD THEN BE THAT THE IRIS' NEGATIVE FEEDBACK CANCELS THE WATER VAPOR'S POSITIVE FEEDBACK, THE WARMING FOR A DOUBLING OF CARBON DIOXIDE WOULD THEN RETURN TO THE 1 C THAT SCIENTISTS PREDICT WOULD OCCUR IF THERE WERE NO FEEDBACKS")

Finally, Old Europe, you say that the sun's effect on the warming of the earth is taken into account. Would you please be more specific.? Exactly how is it taken into account? Is it taken into account by the computer models? If it is, I do not know about it. I will give you a look at another view--the one presented by Sallie Baliunas,PHD who served at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and is an expert on the radiation effects of the Sun--


http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/HL758.CFM

Dr. Baliunas writes:

"Climate scientists believe they can reliably reconstruct Northern Hemisphere land temperature data back to, say, the year, 1700.
If changes in the energy output of the sun, drawn from the envelope of that activity of changes in the sun's magnetism, are superimposed on the reconstructed temperature record, then the two records show a good correlation...For example, a strong warming in the late 19th century, continuing in the early 20th century, up to the 1940's, seems to follow the sun's energy output changes fairly well."


The key words in the twenty two page report of the NAS concerning "global warming" are "uncertain" and "uncertainty."

No decision to destroy a nation's economy should be made because of reports that use UNCERTAIN AND UNCERTAINTY SO OFTEN.


Cheers- Old Europe!!!!!

Ah, one thing at first:

I don't accept the "Capitalism Magazine" as an unbiased source. You certainly understand.

Will now read on.

And the "Heritage Foundation"?




nooooooo.....

You know what's really funny? Spencer and Christy have been working together, and have been presenting the results together. And you know what's funny, too? I got the Christy quote from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center website.



And here's the source: NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

No, I won't. I'll find

Okay. I'll give up. You cite numerous, obviously biased sources and, at the same time, dismiss data from a US government agency as "not correct" without having any idea of what you are talking about.

It's okay that you're not at all interested in objective results. It's okay to have a political agenda.

Very well- try

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/

You will find, Old Europe, that it is the same source I referenced with my old link that I had on file.

Again, I urge you to pay attention to all of the "uncertains" and "uncertainties" listed in the report-I counted 42 of them. But most of all, Old Europe, note Page 7 for the most important point of all---"THE NATURE AND MAGNITUDE OF THESE HYDROLOGICAL FEEDBACKS GIVE RISE TO THE
L A R G E S T S O U R C E OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT CLIMATE SENSITIVITY..."


And as far as my dismissing a source goes, you forget that YOU dismissed my source that showed that there was indeed a Heat Island Effect- I gave you the source--You dismissed it---"United States Historical Climatology Network"--

Agenda? Read my link. You will find that it is YOU who has an agenda.
Cheers Old Europe---

You will discover, Old Europe, that the United States will NOT shut down its economy on the basis of any reports that use UNCERTAIN so many times in describing its findings.

So what form of words are you looking for sufficient to satisfy the President that the US economy must indeed be "shurt down"?

Nope, didn't dismiss that source. Yes, some temperature readings for cities seem to show irregularities. But guess what - that's already being considered in the climate models.

Read for example, at the NASA GISS website:



link: Surface temperature analysis

And of course you realize that sinking average urban temperatures (what you referred to) would constitute exactly the opposite of evidence for the "Heat Island Effect" theory.


So, as long as you can't provide an unbiased source that clearly shows that the satellite data and the thermometer readings for land areas, which obviously includes the cities, do anything but "agree almost perfectly", or show how irregularities in surface temperature readings are not considered in climate models, your point is mute.


By the way, I still don't understand why you won't accept sources such as the NASA or the US Department of Commerce as unbiased. You say that I have an agenda. As I only referred to US government institutions, you should rather accuse them of having an agenda (even though I have no clue of what sinister plots you might accuse them of...)

Oh, one more thing: nobody ever demanded that the United States "shut down their economy". Stating that makes you sound a bit like a paranoid conspiracy theory adherer.

Oh, and Mortkat: your SHOUTING really has to stop...

Just as a casual observation, why is it that the Kyoto Accord proponents are so willing to accept whatever the US government says in favor of global warmng while condemning or calling the US government corrupt or morally bankrupt or incompetent or some other unattractive adjective on every other front?

Look, even President Bush is starting to believe that something must be done on the issue of carbon expenditure.

Does it really matter?

The fact of the matter is, we must reduce the use of fossil fuels even if it is just for security reasons. Why should the US be dependent on nations filled with people that hate it?

Even if it doesn't make sense from an ecological point of view, it still makes sense from a national security point of view.

If your energy source comes from inside your own country, you help minimise the ability of other countries to hinder your economy by rising the prices for your fuel.

Foxy, I could have presented all kinds of sources that say that global warming is happening. I could have posted data from the IPCC. Then I would have been accused of only using non-US sources.

Now I have only used US government sources, and you critizise me for using their data.

Therefore, I have proposition: You decide what sources shall be used! US government sources? Or rather data from international bodies or organizations? Or sources from a specific country other than the US?

And another question: When I quote US government organizations and their results - that global warming is indeed happening - and you critizise me using that data, does that mean that you don't believe them?