American Geophysical Union statement confirms global; prominent skeptic signs on

SF Chronicle/American Geophysical Union ^ | December 18, 2003 | David Perlman

[ancient_geezer]

The U.S. East Coast has exhibited a slight cooling trend over the past couple of decades while the rest of the world has been warming up. The suggested cause is increased cloud cover due to higher sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, which provide more moisture for more clouds over the U.S. East Coast.

That's one explaination, the other is that other parts of the world have poorly maintained weather stations reporting temperature. Many of these stations are in areas prone to under reporting of temperature and have been taken off line throughout the '90's causing a false uptrend in measurements.

Actually its all the fault of the Reagan administration ;O)
IF the Soviet Union hadn't imploded, we could probably not be seeing any "Hocky Stick." from which to infer any global warming at all.

 

McKitrick, Ross R. "An Economist’s Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol" pages 5&6
Presentation to the Department of Economics Annual Fall Workshop
The University of Manitoba
November 7, 2003
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/econ-persp.pdf

 In the early 1990s, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the budget cuts in many OECD economies led to a sudden sharp drop in the number of active weather stations.

***

   Figure 3 shows the total number of stations in the GHCN[Global Historical Climatology Network] and the raw (arithmetic) average of temperatures for those stations. Notice that at the same time as the number of stations takes a dive (around 1990) the average temperature (red bars) jumps. This is due, at least in part, to the disproportionate loss of stations in remote and rural locations, as opposed to places like airports and urban areas where it gets warmer over time because of the build-up of the urban environment.

   This poses a problem for users of the data. Someone has to come up with an algorithm for deciding how much of the change in average temperature post-1990 is due to an actual change in the climate and how much is due to the change in the sample. When we hear over and over about records being set after 1990 in observed “global temperatures” this might mean the climate has changed, or it means an inadequate adjustment is being used, and there is no formal way to decide between these.

   Nevertheless, confident assertions are routinely made about ‘changes in the global temperature’ on the order of tenths of a degree C per decade. The confidence masks pervasive uncertainty in the underlying concepts and data quality.

Figure 3. Number of stations in GHCN collection (diamonds, right axis); Average temperature of annual sample (bars, left axis in C). Source: see Taken By Storm chapter 4.

---

 

Note, how well the insturmental global surface temperature series tracked with Tropospheric(Satellite & Balloon) measurements up until the 1990-91 time frame; then diverge, while we observe the number of remote surface stations in continued decline.:

[RightWhale]

now a PhD in the social sciences

Properly credentialed and certified as a sentient being. That means they have to listen.

[ancient_geezer]

Soon, Baliunas et al. chose the one global warming skeptic on the editorial board (Colin de Freitas).

In the opinion of those critical of the Soon &Baliunas over-view of prior published and peer-reviewed reports; which is what the paper amounted to.

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years
Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf

ABSTRACT: The 1000 yr climatic and environmental history of the Earth contained in various proxy records is reviewed. As indicators, the proxies duly represent local climate. Because each is of a different nature, the results from the proxy indicators cannot be combined into a hemispheric or global quantitative composite. However, considered as an ensemble of individual expert opinions, the assemblage of local representations of climate establishes both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period as climatic anomalies with worldwide imprints, extending earlier results by Bryson et al. (1963), Lamb (1965), and numerous intervening research efforts. Furthermore, the individual proxies can be used to address the question of whether the 20th century is the warmest of the 2nd millennium locally. Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.

Such a damning research, simply listing the works of others the UN/IPCC folks would rather not take into account.

I'll simply re-quote:

"However, when an independent review was conducted of the Soon/Baliunas article, no misrepresentation was found, nor any shortcomings with Climate Research's peer-review process."

Whether or not a "global warming skeptic", in the view of those critical of the CR review, was involved in reviewing the Soon & Baliunas paper becomes irrelavent in the face of the its content as well as subsequent independant review of the article itself.

I note those same critics do not seem to stand in line to similarly object when artcles in CR, friendly to their views, are peer reviewed by the same process.

[ancient_geezer]

"It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn't been increased in the past century."

Of couse quantifying that change and determining its direction and degree of it's effect in comparison with natural events is another thing altogether.

 

 

CO₂ + Solar Temperature Anomaly Reconstruction, ^oC
CO₂ contribution to temperature (blue area)
Solar contribution to temperature anomaly (red area)

Bottomline, more than 70% of the variation in Earth's global temperature is Solar related.

From the analysis, total changes in CO2 concentration (natural + anthropogenic) can only be used to account for a linear 0.0266^oC/decade (0.266^oC for the next 100years).

Temperature change due to CO2 is a log function of concentration of CO2. Iit can be maintained in a linear rise only so long as the sources of that CO2(whether natural or anthropogenic) can increase at an exponential rate.

[ancient_geezer]

Cloud processes are still one of the largest uncertainties in the models. Observations such as this one help improve the models.

So do observations such as these:

Variation in low level cloud cover have also been shown to be substantially related to solar activity.

FIG. I. Composite figure showing changes in Earth's cloud cover from four satellite cloud data sets together with cosmic ray fluxes from Climax (solid curve, normalized to May 1965) and 10.7 cm solar Bur (dashed curve, in units of 10-22 Wm-2 Hz-2). Triangles are the Nimbus7 data, squares are the ISCCP C2 and ISCCP_D2 data, diamonds are the DMSP data. All of the displayed data have been smoothed using a 12 month running mean. The Nimbus7 is for the southern hemisphere over oceans with the tropics excluded. The DMSP data are total cloud cover for the southern hemisphere over oceans, and finally the ISCCP data have been derived from geostationary satellites over oceans with the tropics excluded. Also shown are 2-standard-deviation error bars for the three data sets, one for each 6 months. 

and is the subject of a current research project at CERN.

Contents of CERN 2001-007
Workshop on ion-aerosol-cloud interactions

http://preprints.cern.ch/cernrep/2001/2001-007/2001-007.html

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/iaci_workshop/proceedings.html

See also:

Patterns of tropospheric response to solar variability
Hans Gleisner and Peter Thejll
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 13, 1711, doi:10.1029/2003GL017129, 2003
12 July 2003
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017129.shtml
http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solar-terrestrial/staff/thejll/GleisnerThejll2003GL017129.pdf

[Boot Hill]

cogitator suggests:   "Your math is off. The approximately pre-industrial CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is 285 ppm, not 70 ppm. The increase since the mid-1800s has been about 70 ppm."

NO! The math presented is entirely accurate because it is based upon the AGU's own statement that I quoted in post #97!

Read what they said again!

The American Geophysical Union declares: "...that since 1900 more than 80 percent of the atmosphere's heat-trapping carbon dioxide...has been caused by fossil fuel burning and changes in land use."

According to that statement 80% of (the current 350 ppm CO2 level) is due to man, or a whopping 280 ppm, leaving only 70 ppm as the pre-1900 CO2 level, according to what was said in the AGU statement!!!

Note what the statement DIDN'T say. It didn't say the level of CO2 increased by 80%. It says that (more than) 80% has been caused by man!

THAT is what I found to be so astounding and easily disprovable about their statement!

--Boot Hill

[Dan Evans]

The statement immediately following the paraphrase appears to be a direct quote from Christy.

Yeah that's the impression you would get until you look real close but it doesn't sound like something a good scientist would say. The statement doesn't quantify anything at all and it uses relative terms like "massive" when the truth is that our CO2 emissions are microscopic relative to nature.

I'd wager that the statement was made by the interviewer and Christy was forced to agree. I'd pay a thousand dollars for a recording of that phone conversation.

[cogitator]

I found this in the AGU statement:

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer."

Where did you find your quote?

[cogitator]

I'm sorry. What you quoted was in the article, but it was a miswording of the AGU council statement. That's where the confusion arises.

[Dan Evans]

James Angell's NOAA radiosonde dataset has shown warming consistent with the surface record.

Only after he was finished dicking with the data was it consistent. Before that it was consistent with the satellite data.

And the "surface record" is actually a record of the increased surface area of asphalt in our cities.

Christy's testimony before the House:

"A new version of the microwave satellite data has been produced, but not yet published, by Remote Sensing Systems or RSS of California. Two weeks ago a paper was published in Science magazine' electronic edition which used a curious means of testing our UAH version against RSS.[1] The paper cited climate model results which agreed more with RSS, because RSS data showed about 0.4°F more warming than UAH's data for this same layer called the mid-troposphere. UAH's total warming for this layer was about 0.05°F. (This layer is higher in the atmosphere than the lower troposphere mentioned earlier with its 0.3°F warming.) The strong implication of the paper was that since RSS was more consistent with the model output, it was likely a more accurate dataset than ours."

Oops, my mistake, the word he used was "curious" not "peculiar".

[Boot Hill]

cogitator says:   "What you quoted was in the article, but it was a miswording of the AGU council statement."

Good catch. And what a miswording! From 80% of the CO2 to 80% of the increase in CO2! Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm off to Christmas festivities, hope you have a merry one, too.

--Boot Hill

[Dan Evans]

Since solar influence has such a great effect on the climate and since changes in solar influence is unpredictable it would follow that predictive models are of little use. But has anyone made a non-predictive model? A model that accounts for all effects predictable or not -- vocanoes, solar etc.

[Dan Evans]

 Before that it was consistent with the satellite balloon data.

[ancient_geezer]

But has anyone made a non-predictive model? A model that accounts for all effects predictable or not -- vocanoes, solar etc.

No such model can exist, as much of the process involved is not sufficiently understood. Additionally, there is insufficient historical data from which to construct an accurate beginning state vector or track of historical responses against which to test a model.

All that can be done in that area is to apply the current models in use with such information as is available in the historical record.

One such recent study states:

Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?

Abstract:

"It is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than do models. The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century.

This along with the CERN workshop statement:

 

Conclusions of the Workshop on Ion--Aerosol--Cloud Interactions,
CERN, 18--20 April 2001
A.W. Wolfendale

http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2001/2001-007/p249.pdf

In the case of the current global warming, there is increasing agreement that the climate model fits to the temperature record need to amplify the solar contribution by about a factor 3. The presently-assumed solar contribution is only from the (Lean et al., 1995) direct irradiance changes. An additional, indirect, solar contribution could either decrease or increase the projections of the anthropogenic effects.

Makes a pretty clear case that the current models are viewed as lacking in their treatment of solar related forcings.

[Dan Evans]

That's typical. Global warming scientist sends out press release, journalist screws it up so it sounds worse, but does the scientist call the journalist to correct the story? No.

[pageonetoo]

I'm now going to return to my back patio where several of my buddies and I will continue to empty dozens of jumbo cannisters of hair spray directly into the air in an effort to "heat things up" so that our BBQ will be more enjoyable. Merry Christmas!

Can anyone say 'potato cannon'? Why spray it in the air? It can really do a lot for the ego, when you lob a 'tater' a couple hundred feet, out of a pvc pipe!!! There are also great effects from 'frying pan sprays'. We have tried all kinds... ;>)

[StopGlobalWhining]

From your link in #4:

Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results.

That sounds to me like a blatant demand for more funding and increased job security.

I know it is unanswerable, but if we asked the AGU to give us a range of how much of a reduction in CO2 it would take to lower the average temperature of the earth by 1 degree C during the next 50-100 years from today's value, what would that range be?

10%? 50%? 90%?

Whatever they would guess for a number, is it worth the cost?

[inPhase]

Yes , I hear that so often, and government holds over 90 per cent of our R and D money in the US. It's about jobs. And thanks for the comment; I really do have valid reasons for being basically against gov controlled science.


The reason the NOAA scientist has been asked to be quiet and give no more talks is in my answer next post here.

[inPhase]

We ventured off on the work being suppressed. His particular work was more than CO2 etc data. His work show aerosols staying around in a just >12km band.


I know that the CO2 output and other gases grnhse incl, are gigantic volumes dwarfing human activity. Many studies, many data over time. Still, I am not for poisoning ourselves, just against social scientists doing screwed up science eg greenhouse.

This NOAA scientist was actually told by his boss not to give talks anymore on this work (that's how I first heard, at a lecture), but the most interesting part at the last post to me was that
the volcanic aerosols are a "constant" over time. ESA has the same results.

The reason he was suppressed was the ABL proram

was trying to pull off a fly a laser above the clouds with no aberration nonsense. His work was on their way.