News The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

[Skyhunter]

You asked earlier in the thread about "conspiracy" --- you're actually looking at evidence of deliberate misrepresentation of data here --- don't know if I'd call it conspiracy yet, but it's got more than a slightly funny smell to it.

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/AA_June06_EN1.pdf#search='graceantarctic%20ice%20sheet'

I don't see it as a misrepresentation. The dashed line is an average. There was a large spike in the first half of 2005, followed by a large drop off. There was also a large drop in 2004, followed by a large spike. I think perhaps you are misreading the graph, or it could be me, I wish it had a legend to explain what the lines represent exactly. What I found interesting is that the red and blue lines haves transposed positions. Would sure be nice to know what that means.

 

[Zlex]

I see a lot of this kind of obfuscation. Not that there isn't still a lot we don't know or understand. I just feel that the GW deniers are grasping when they resort to cherry-picking and misrepresenting the conclusions of a study.

Skyhunter,

Maybe, maybe I am grasping. I admit that I am biased in my beliefs about the drivers of climate.

The Suns output is a direct driver; we can't obviously change that. The Earth's albedo is also a direct driver. Try as we might to change the Triple point of water, it is what it is, and we live in a buffered film of lots of water in all three phases. The % of the full Earth disk that is covered with clouds has been an incredibly stable and fixed %. That is because of a very stiff feedback mechanism. (If it were otherwise, then this % would vary widely. It does not, so it must be governed by a stiff feedback mechanism.) For as some have calculated, http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF11/1191.html

If the Earth's temperature rises by 2 deg F, in our buffered skin of water in all three phases, will there be more, less or the same amount of water as vapor in our buffered atmosphere? And if there is more, will there be more, less or the same amount of net reflective clouds in our atmosphere? And if more, will the Earth's albedo decrease, increase, or stay the same?

All these years of satellite imagery, why has there never been an image of the Earth with cloud cover everywhere? What prevents that? With cloud cover nowhere? WHat prevents that? It's not a purely random event, because in any long string of random numbers, ".33" does not keep coming up day after day after day after day...

In fact, there has only ever been evidence of cloud cover covering only an extremely tiny narrow and stable range of the full Earth disk--because it must. Because sunlight is a direct driver, and so is Earth albedo. Land, ocean, ice albedo changes slowly, but since we have the happy fortune of living in a thin buffered atmosphere with lots of water in all three phases, we would have to evaporate our oceans (under cloud filled skies and without the Sun's help) to knock ourselves out of this buffer and its stiff feedback mechanism. Or, likewise, freeze all the water, without shade from the Sun; an equal impossibility for Man.

This could take a while. If all of mankinds energy consumption were devoted to heating up the ocean, it would take us about 10000 years just to raise the oceans 1 deg F. Cooling it, we'd do no better, even with the best minds and 100% of the world's resources put to the task.

In the meantime, the Sun would no longer be helping us, and Earth's radiative cooling would be cooling off the Earth faster than we could heat it up.

These are direct drivers. The atmosphere is about 20% O2, about 80% N2, and about 0% everything that the pinheads say is really driving climate, measured in ppm. O2 and N2 are greenhouse gasses; the 'greenhouse' effect would be called "Boyles Law"(+ Charles Law = Ideal Gas Law) anywhere else except in mystic boogeyman sceintific street theatre. The surface of the Earth is warmer than the planet radiative balance skin temperature because as pressure increases, so does temperature. Thank you gravity, that is 'the greenhouse effect.'

Can we substantially change the physics of that? Can we change the atmospheric gas constant significantly, or is our atmosphere still 'about 20% O2, and about 80% N2?'

And here is where the mystics live: can we substantially alter the albedo feedback mechanism, such that we alter the stiffness of the feedbaclk mechanism, or render it a positive feedback mechanism(such that the feedback amplifies perturbations, instead of damps them?

Because, when over 40 years of satellite imagery doesn't support our pet theories, and instead, we have to resort to 'more reliable' modeling of 'earth shine observations' made by folks staring at the moon centuries ago, or 'ice core gas analysis' of a handful of samples somewhere on Earth is divined to tell us 'the' temperature of the Earth 50000 yrs ago, something silly is going on.

Natural variations in solar output, volcanic emissions(not just step loading eruptions, emissions are almost constant) provide perturbations which far outweight anything man can do, and as is murkily shown by the INDOEX/Global coo...err, dimming/warming debates, not everything that man does uniformy contrinutes to either warming or cooling, but both!

So the real issue is, is the 'net' impact of mans activity(not his total greenhouse gasses/ppm emmissions contrinution to global warming, nor his total particulate contrinution to global coo--err dimming, but his net impact) significantly consequential, related to 'natural' variations which we ultimately know will end in a dim 3 deg K soup of nothing no matter what we do or don't do, so is clealry not in any long term mythical 'balance' that the mystics claim for it.

Of course, this would require that we actually knew or could measure man's net impact: we can't. It would also require that we 'knew' what the 'natural balance' was, and we don't. It would require that we 'knew' that Man was not part of the natural world, and that is another totally religious assertion.

 

[Skyhunter]

You asked earlier in the thread about "conspiracy" --- you're actually looking at evidence of deliberate misrepresentation of data here --- don't know if I'd call it conspiracy yet, but it's got more than a slightly funny smell to it.

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/AA_June06_EN1.pdf#search='graceantarctic%20ice%20sheet'

I don't see it as a misrepresentation. The dashed line is an average. There was a large spike in the first half of 2005, followed by a large drop off. There was also a large drop in 2004, followed by a large spike. I think perhaps you are misreading the graph, or it could be me, I wish it had a legend to explain what the lines represent exactly. What I found interesting is that the red and blue lines haves transposed positions. Would sure be nice to know what that means.

 

[Andre]

I wonder why there is a line through the name of skyhunter. Can't be for careless posting. Can't see anything wrong with that.

Anyway, regarding the consensus part, and the Oreskes study

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

It must be known that a scrutinized repetition of the study does not hold up:

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060627/20060627_18.html

Furthermore about the cause of the warming of the last decade, perhaps it's good to take note of this recent peer reviewed scientific paper:

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/enfuem/2006/20/i03/abs/ef050276y.html

Essenhigh, Robert H., 2006. Prediction of the Standard Atmosphere Profiles of Temperature, Pressure, and Density with Height for the Lower Atmosphere by Solution of the (S-S) Integral Equations of Transfer and Evaluation of the Potential for Profile Perturbation by Combustion Emissions. Energy & Fuels Vol. 20, No 3, pp. 1057-1067, May 17, 2006

Abstract

This analytical solution, believed to be original here, to the 1D formulation of the (1905-1906) integral (S-S) Equations of Transfer, governing radiation through the atmosphere, is developed for future evaluation of the potential impact of combustion emissions on climate change. ...etc."
etc

Nothing spectacular in the abstract however the conclusions (ch6) state:

...More specifically, the outcome of the analysis does not support the concept of “forcing” or precipitation of bifurcation behavior because of increased CO2. Rather, although the evidence is clear that global warming is currently occurring as discussed elsewhere, it would appear, nevertheless, that it is not the rising carbon dioxide concentration that is driving up the temperature...

this is followed by an alternative hypothesis that may or may not prove to be right.

For checking the full PDF, pm me, it's worth it.

It's likely that there is consensus about a warming period from about 1980 to 1998, like there is about boiling water. Apparantly there is no consensus about it's cause. More discussions in the Earth thread.

 

[MeJennifer]

If there is no scientific basis for denying AGW, why is there so much doubt being expressed in the media and by layman on blogs and forums?

Typical herd animal mentality!

Except for the types who want to "change society for the better" the herd animal wants to hear no bad news.

Now if things become a really a problem and in everybody's face then the herd mentality will switch 100%. Then scapegoats need to be found. Then watch politicians climbing on boxes "explaining" that they always thought this a big problem.

First there is denial then there is offense!
The typical herd animal behavior.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Typical herd animal mentality!

Except for the types who want to "change society for the better" the herd animal wants to hear no bad news.

Now if things become a really a problem and in everybody's face then the herd mentality will switch 100%. Then scapegoats need to be found. Then watch politicians climbing on boxes "explaining" that they always thought this a big problem.

First there is denial then there is offense!
The typical herd animal behavior.

One thing I really hate to see in a debate is the identification of one's opponents with animals, and dismissing their arguments as just what you would expect from animals.

Most of the anti warming people (whom I believe to be wrong) regard themselves as the very opposite of herd animals. They see the firm opinions of the scientists as an attempt to force an unsound elite opinion on the people and themselves as the courageous resisters of that power play.

 

[MeJennifer]

What are you talking about, which opponent?

I was simply giving my explanation as to why people don't care too much about global warming.
Which by the way is the main question of the person who created the topic!
But you seem to have identified "the opponent" already.
What opponent are you talking about?

 

[Andre]

I wonder if it is at all possible to have an analytic neutral fallacy free exchange of ideas here about the thread subject instead of about the people.

 

[Bystander]

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/AA_June06_EN1.pdf#search='graceantarctic%20ice%20sheet'

I don't see it as a misrepresentation. The dashed line is an average. There was a large spike in the first half of 2005, followed by a large drop off. There was also a large drop in 2004, followed by a large spike. I think perhaps you are misreading the graph, or it could be me, I wish it had a legend to explain what the lines represent exactly. What I found interesting is that the red and blue lines haves transposed positions. Would sure be nice to know what that means.

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~piccard/radnotes/data.html#expon ; sections E and F should give you some idea of methods for handling data --- if you wish to call the dashed line "an average," do so with the understanding that it is an "average" direction (slope) and "average" position (intercept) in the chosen coordinate plane (time and mass, time and change in distance between GRACE birds, or whatever inferences the non-discerning reader can be led to draw through omission of information).

"Red" is probably raw GRACE data, the change in separation distance between the two birds. http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/newsletter/2002/august2002.html gives you a quick summary of mission parameters; the 24 m/day loss of altitude is of interest for estimating change in sensitivity to surface mass defects. Translates (with assumptions) to 9 km/a loss of altitude; the decrease in Earth surface area that is "seen" as altitude decreases is 1-2%/a, and the time spent over a "target area" for measurement likewise decreases by 1%/a; a net loss in sensitivity to "distributed" (snow and ice cover, plus atmosphere) mass defects of 2-3%/a, give or take a half order of magnitude, plus corrections mission controllers might make by increasing the separation distance between birds. There is an increase in sensitivity resulting from reduced vertical distance between birds and mass defects, but, unless I've muffed an exponent or two, the radial component of acceleration due to mass defects is below the 1 micron resolution threshold for anything less than a million cubic km of ice piled in a 100 km cube; that is, the measurable changes in distance between the two birds are due entirely to tangential accelerations. 'Nother GRACE overview talks about 150 km loss in altitude over mission life (three times what I've estimated) --- and, unsaid in the "24 m/day" link is the possibility that it could be less over the mission life. Orbit decays due to atmospheric drag, and sensitivity drops at some rate.

The "black dash" (trend line) is fit to the "red." Why look at the GRACE decay trend and not comment on it? Got me.

Leaves "blue" for actual ice mass lost or gained over the three years --- thirty-four points plus uncertainty limits (error bars) --- measurement a month (corresponding to same for red). We'll presume that the track widths overlap by at least one half among all thirty-four.

"Maybe 'blue' is GRACE, and 'red' is ice?" Constant signal over three years ("trend line" through 'blue' is zero slope, zero intercept), and decreasing sensitivity means 'red' increases --- not the case. "Sensitivity went up?" Mebbe --- lower altitude means nearer horizon, means less time for tangential acceleration, also means smaller areal extent of "distributed" mass defect being sensed --- anyone's got factors I've omitted, forgotten, or of which I'm not aware, say so.

"Connect the dots" if still in kindergarten, or if an economist (okay, physical scientists do it to check for transpositions of numbers with the visual cortex --- reduced data doesn't connect to yield same shape as raw data, time to go back and do things over). It's tempting to try fitting this stuff to some periodic function (local maxima at 200x.5, and local minima at .0, but it's a bit noisy to expect much useful). It might be a little unfair to jump to a conclusion that this plot is "a deliberate misrepresentation" of GRACE results: Science does have an embargo policy; authors are not allowed to have presented work elsewhere before publication, or to present it elsewhere after publication. Granting an interview to A-space Amer., and furnishing them with "working" plots of trends, data, reduced data, that are not going to be submitted to Science for publication is a way around "embargo" --- does it bias reviews? Is it ethical? Fill in the blanks on your own.

Mass is mass. GRACE measures change in mass of the Antarctic ice sheet plus the atmosphere over it. Given a "footprint" radius for the experiment of 200 km, the mass of the atmosphere included in a measurement is 1.2x10¹² tons, equivalent to 1200 km³ ice. Most weather occurs within about a 30 mbar range of atmospheric pressures, 30-40 km³ of ice, and that level of "noise" may, or may not, be included in the 80 km³ uncertainty reported in the story --- it ain't mentioned --- it's good form to "assign" identified source contributions in error reports, but far from universally followed.

What else? A-space Amer., "... GRACE measures micron scale variations ..." UT GRACE newsletter talks about 10 microns in the mission parameters.

A-space Amer. overstating things? Yeah. Wash. Post? When not? Velicogna? Ain't seen Science yet.

 

[Skyhunter]

I found this to be interesting, although I wouldn't call Pat Michaels a "skeptic". Since he and others that dispute AGW commonly refer scientists that support AGW as "alarmists", I will from now on refer to him and the other AGW lobbyists as "denialists".

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/07/27/national/w144018D84.DTL&hw=pat+michaels&sn=001&sc=1000

Pat Michaels — Virginia's state climatologist, a University of Virginia professor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute — told Western business leaders last year that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research. So last week, a Colorado utility organized a collection campaign to help him out, raising at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.

And the scientists on the other side of the debate...

Three top climate scientists said they don't accept money from private groups. The same goes for the Web site realclimate.org, which has long criticized Michaels. "We don't get any money; we do this in our free time," said Realclimate.org contributor Stefan Rahmstorf, an ocean physics scientist at Potsdam University in Germany.

I think that their is a growing credibility problem for denialists like Michaels. I would be interested to know where his funding has come from previously.