Rushing to Judgment (Global Warming Questioned - Long but Good)

Wilson Quarterly ^ | Autumn 2003 | Jack M. Hollander

[Dan Evans]

CO2 concentrations are a significant controlling or driving factor

Main Entry: sig·nif·i·cant

1 having meaning; especially

2 having or likely to have influence or effect

3 probably caused by something other than mere chance

The word "significant" does not mean large. Scientifically it means the effect is real and not caused by random noise in the data -- even though the effect could be small. It does not mean a major driving force. The word is misused quite frequently by environmental "scientists".

Solar variability has been factored in, and measured. It's not a factor right now.

How can it be factored in without being a factor? Computer models using computer models do a poor job of predicting climate. Calculations using solar changes have successfully predicted El Nino several years in advance. However, climate change via solar modulation of cosmic ray flux is a major, indisputable factor.

The petition was accompanied by a paper that was made to look like a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) paper

From the NAS declaration:

"a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the PNAS"

That's it? They used the same format. That makes it a hoax? That's how they silence the voice of 20,000 doctorates saying "NO" to the Kyoto treaty? What about the poll of the 600 state climatologists saying essentially the same thing?

[gatex]

"Time for my question in response. See where the red line is at the far right side of the graph? Notice anything unusual about that?"

It's around 370 ppmv, which is 22 percent higher than the 304 ppmv reading 340,000 years ago, assuming that all the numbers are very accurate.

However, are all these data accurate to +/- 22 percent. ? What is the percent accuracy ?

The actual ppmv 340,000 years ago could have been 400 ppmv, for all we know.

Also,there appears to be a long lag between a temperature increase and a CO2 increase---- quote ---"Using semiempirical models of densification applied to past Vostok climate conditions, Barnola et al. (1991) reported that the age difference between air and ice may be ~6000 years during the coldest periods instead of ~4000 years, as previously assumed."

--- link

But did human activity cause the CO2 and temperature increases 340,000 years ago ?

[cogitator]

Here's the paper in PDF form:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Anybody can judge for themselves if it looks like a published peer-reviewed paper or not.

Now: Here's the petition statement with my agree/disagree positions in italics:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment (disagree), hinder the advance of science and technology (agree), and damage the health and welfare of mankind (agree)."

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere (agree) and disruption of the Earth's climate (agree). Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. (agree with caveat: increases in CO2 could also cause many detrimental effects for other plant and animal environments of the Earth)."

If I evaluate this statement as written: in complete honesty based on its wording, I would say that it is accurate and I would sign it. I've never believed that the Kyoto Protocol is useful; it would do virtually nothing. The use of the words "catastrophic" and "disruption" render the statement accurate. Had the sentence read this instead:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause measurable warming of the Earth's atmosphere and noticeable alteration of the Earth's climate" ...

I would strongly disagree with it.

As for your statement:

The Petition Project is valid documentation in the scientific community that there is not a concensus on human induced global warming.

I also agree with it. However, I also agree with this letter:

The State of Climate Science - October 2003

and I will point out that consensus of the climate science community is a lot different than the consensus of the "scientific" community.

[jpl]

If NASA wasted less time worrying about this crapola, maybe our space shuttles wouldn't be exploding in midair.

[cogitator]

However, are all these data accurate to +/- 22 percent. ? What is the percent accuracy ?

Of what? Temperature or CO2 concentration? If you have a reference, tell me: I wouldn't be able to find this easily with a Web search.

Your link notes this:

"The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr."

which is rather obvious. They probably make the assumption that the numbers are reasonably accurate and that the uncertainty bounds are low probability, which is statistically reasonable.

But did human activity cause the CO2 and temperature increases 340,000 years ago ?

Of course not. A warming global climate caused the CO2 increases 340,000, 240,000, and 130,000 years ago, and also about 10,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial period. After which CO2 concentrations remained relatively stable until a few years into the 1800s. Also note that the Vostok ice core data define a CO2 concentration zone that has only been exceeded (due to anthropogenic emissions) in the past two centuries.

That's the problem that's keeping climate scientists hot and bothered -- what happens to the climate when one of its controlling factors jumps out of its normal range by so much, so fast? And that's hard to predict.

Now I have to get back to AG.

[kidd]

I will point out that consensus of the climate science community is a lot different than the consensus of the "scientific" community

I agree. The climate science community would have its funding cut off in a second if it admitted to Congress that human induced global warming is a farce.

Bigger potential disaster = More government grants

The unfunded (and thus independent) scientific community is in a position to provide an unbiased view of the subject.

[Dan Evans]

Your graph indicates that increases in temperature cause increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. There is about a 1000 year lag between a temperature increase and CO2 increase.

John Daly:

"graph, ...temperature changes first - followed by the CO2, not the other way around. This is evident from the time lags between peaks and troughs in the graphs."

From CO2science:

"On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years.

In a somewhat different type of study, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediment facies in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting phase of the last great ice age. In commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years."

[cogitator]

What was the change in temperature that can be correlated with that CO2 change after removing the effect of the primary initiators of change?

1 degree C.

In what part of your voluminous contributions does that figure appear?

The issue is clear that CO2 not a major "driver" as shown clearly in reviewing the data and the statement of Brenner.

Incorrect. Crowley and Berner 2001, which I have made a copy of over the weekend but which requires access to Science magazine online if you want to read it online have an excellent figure that I wish I could reproduce here. It shows the total net radiative forcing over the Phanerozoic, combined with the CO2 concentrations (which also appear in one of your figures, which is why I felt it necessary to bring Berner into this discussion), as well as low-latitude paleotemperatures and glacial epochs. There is only one extended glacial epoch -- the Ordovician -- which does not correlate with the periods of lowest radiative forcing. Note that radiative forcing was calculated for changing solar luminosity as well as CO2 concentrations. However, the periods of highest net radiative forcing uniformly occur when CO2 levels are elevated. The glacial epochs, with the exception of the Ordovician, uniformly occur with low CO2 concentrations. As the authors note:

"For comparison with climate indices, it is important to consider the net radiative forcing, which combines the logarithmic relation between CO2 and radiative forcing with estimated increases in the sun's output over time. The latter term, generally considered robust (ref. Endal and Sofia 1981) corresponds to 1% increase in the solar constant per 100 million years and modifies the relative size of the early Phanerozoic and Mesozoic (245-65 Ma) CO2 peaks substantially."

So, attempting to directly correlate CO2 concentration with temperature is fallacious in the Phanerozoic. Summary: the primary factor determining net radiative forcing in the Phanerozoic is atmospheric CO2 concentration, but the value of net radiative forcing is modified (not determined) by variability in solar luminosity.

We'll examine what Crowley and Berner say about the anomalous Ordovician glaciation tomorrow, and then get to what they say about Veizer's research. And then I plan to delve deeper into the Vostok ice core correlations, a topic that I began discussing with "gatex".

[gatex]

"However, are all these data accurate to +/- 22 percent. ? What is the percent accuracy ?---
" Of what? Temperature or CO2 concentration? If you have a reference, tell me: I wouldn't be able to find this easily with a Web search. "

Why not both- --- I don't have a reference, but started thinking about this when I saw the links about the CO2 lagging the temperature by several thousand years.

The accuracy may be discussed in one of the global warming links, but I have only recently been scanning/reading them and have not covered them in detail.

[cogitator]

See reply 63 about the petition project. I do not have time to get into solar variability with you right now and how it is factored into millenial paleoclimatic reconstructions: I only have two hands and one computer. Bear with me.

[cogitator]

Your graph indicates that increases in temperature cause increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. There is about a 1000 year lag between a temperature increase and CO2 increase.

This is common knowledge and is characteristic of the Earth's climate system over the period of Pleistocene glaciations. It is not relevant to predictions of what will happen to climate in the next century, because atmospheric C02 concentrations are rising during an interglacial after remaining relatively stable (at around 280 ppmv) since the termination of the last glacial period. I provided a set of graphs on the first "page" (1-50) of this thread -- see graph (b) in that set.

[cogitator]

The unfunded (and thus independent) scientific community is in a position to provide an unbiased view of the subject.

Tell me this. How many people drive cars in the United States? (100 million? 150 million?)

How many of them would you trust would have the expertise to drive a NASCAR vehicle at about 200 mph in a NASCAR race?

The subset of experts who understand what they're doing is considerably smaller than the set of amateurs who don't -- even if the basic skills are similar.

[Dan Evans]

How was that graph created? Did they glue present day atmospheric measurements of CO2 onto a record of ice core data? Is this another "Hockey Stick"?

[ancient_geezer]

1 degree C.

In what part of your voluminous contributions does that figure appear?

from reply #35, which you conveniently overlooked in your hurry, however just for you straight from the presses:

 

... we revisit the Geophysical record of CO2 and it's correlation to global temperture, this time we remove the catastrophic initiations of ice ages due to factors clearly not associated with CO2 concentration.

From the geological record, we can see a remainder trendline of CO2 concentration with respect to temperature by running a trend through the peak global tempertures.

As you have acknowleged the initiation of the deep iceages are clearly due to other factors such as plate tectonics, Gamma Ray Bursts, Meteoric events, etc.which initiate atmospheric cooling incident to the creation of high altitude cloud cover & icefields altering the mean albedo of the earth. Such effects lower overall irradiation of the earths surface and hence cools the surface. Under such conditions the major multi-million year iceages are induced. Remove their effects on the overall record, and what is left behind is a residual that can be perceived, to the first order, as a correlation of CO2 and temperature if we assume an essentially constant Solar radiation flux, which the IPCC modellers insist as being true.

I bring your attention to the two redline additions to our favorite chart:

:

 

The upper horizontal red line represents a peak temperature of 22.8^oC as represented at the chart Cambrian CO2 peak of 7000ppm. The second and descending redline is a rough approximation of the average peak temperatures which should be somewhat representative of any residual correlation between CO2 & temperature, we note that the downtrending redline terminates at approximately 21.6^oC and today's 320ppm CO2 concentration.

It should also be noted here that the relationship between CO2 radiant absorption capacity varies logrithmically with concentration of the gas under consideration in the atmosphere. For any fixed multiplier of change in concentration there is a linear incremental change in absorbed energy of the gas. Thus doubling, or halving, the concentration of CO2 will result in a linear increment in the absorbed radiation at the wavelengths CO2 is responsive to where incident radiative flux is constant.

7000ppm/320ppm = 21.9 (~ 4.45 doublings) with 22.8-21.6 = 1.2^oC change in temperature.

Overall atmospheric correlation between CO2 & increment of energy absorbed of necessity includes any temperature/concentration linkages that may actually occur in the atmosphere.

for 1.2^oC & 4.45 doublings, CO2 doubles for ~ 0.27^oC increase in global temperature

A value which is much less than the lowest 1.5to2.5^oC/doubling estimate built into the UN/IPCC global climate models, which suggests the relationship between CO2 and temperature built into the IPCC models is substantially overstated and in error.

 

---

 

Somes just mere observation of published information is sufficient to see the relationships and their magnitude for one's self.

[ancient_geezer]

"For comparison with climate indices, it is important to consider the net radiative forcing, which combines the logarithmic relation between CO2 and radiative forcing with estimated increases in the sun's output over time. The latter term, generally considered robust (ref. Endal and Sofia 1981) corresponds to 1% increase in the solar constant per 100 million years and modifies the relative size of the early Phanerozoic and Mesozoic (245-65 Ma) CO2 peaks substantially."

Gee it was good that I utilized a logrithmic measure for the effect of CO2 to establish that doubling of CO2 concentration associated each 0.27^oC increment change in temperature wasn't it?

Looking back to 640Ma again along temperature peaks to maintain as near constant conditions as possible, we can also adjust for the percentage change in temperature due to 540ma of increase of solar flux.

That would mean that solar flux increased by a factor of 1.01^(5.4) = 1.0552 and by stephan-boltzman the temperature factor would be increased by the 4th root of the variation of solar flux, (i.e. 1.013).

Hmmm 1.013*0.27^oC= 0.274^oC associated with each doubling of CO2.

Thanks for reminding me to adjust for the change in solar faction, always glad to assure precision in my measurements.

[cogitator]

How was that graph created? Did they glue present day atmospheric measurements of CO2 onto a record of ice core data? Is this another "Hockey Stick"?

CO2 concentrations from past years can be accurately determined from the bubbles trapped in the ice. The time resolution is significantly better at the top of an ice core than near the bottom, where some ice flow and compression of the layers occurs. Measuring the pCO2 of a trapped air sample in a bubble is essentially the same procedure as measuring the CO2 content the atmosphere, so to merge the ice core and present-day atmospheric CO2 measurements is a very straightforward procedure. I.e., you just plot the time-series on the same graph.

[cogitator]

Forgot to mention: if you look closely, you can see where the Mauna Loa data set overlaps with the ice core data sets.

[kidd]

The majority of people in this country do not hold degrees in the sciences. However, that is irrelevant since we are talking about the community of scientists, not the general public.

In keeping with your NASCAR analogy, I would certainly trust a stock car driver or Indy car driver's opinion on how a particular NASCAR vehicle was driven.

Trusting a climatologist to form an unbiased opinion of global warming is like trying to get a Yankees fan to admit that Aaron Boone is the worst third baseman in baseball today.

[ancient_geezer]

The time resolution is significantly better at the top of an ice core than near the bottom, where some ice flow and compression of the layers occurs.

Hmmm interesting,

Measuring the pCO2 of a trapped air sample in a bubble is essentially the same procedure as measuring the CO2 content the atmosphere, so to merge the ice core and present-day atmospheric CO2 measurements is a very straightforward procedure. I.e., you just plot the time-series on the same graph.

One should note that temperature leads CO2 concentration in the most recent ice core data the most:

And is totally consistant with the findings of:

Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis

http://isi-eh.usc.es/trabajos/122_41_fullpaper.pdf

•  "We find, in opposition to previous studies, that there is no evidence of Granger causality from global carbon dioxide emission to global surface temperature. Further, we could not find robust empirical evidence for the causal nexus from global carbon dioxide concentration to global surface temperature."

As well as our own inspection of the Paleoclimate record in prior replies that indicates that the long term CO2 temperature correlation is on the close order of 0.27 degree C for doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

[Dan Evans]

"The subset of experts who understand what they're doing is considerably smaller than the set of amateurs who don't -- even if the basic skills are similar. "

An amateur is someone who isn't being paid for his work. Pick up a history book and see how many technical and scientific advances have been made by amateurs -- people who fund their own research. Einstein did some of his best work as an amateur when he was a patent clerk.

But you raise a good question -- who should we trust? Honesty is more of an issue than competence. I would trust the man who is not being paid, he has nothing to lose by telling the truth and nothing to gain by distorting the truth to please his politically motivated patrons.