Meltfactor.org

Some suggest that human-induced climate change is a matter of belief. Belief or dis-belief is, however, beside the point. Climatology is a science, not a religion. Let me explain…

Science is a tool, a way of knowing. Sciences employs the scientific method.

Here’s how the scientific method works… Science begins with an observation, for example, the case in point: air temperatures are increasing on the long-term average; glaciers are retreating essentially everywhere on Earth, fossil fuel combustion and agricultural practices (deforestation, rice cultivation) have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations well above concentrations  in the last 650,000 years; evident from ice cores. We know from science that gaseous chemicals such carbon dioxide and methane absorb infrered ‘heat’ radiation…

Humans are inquisitive and thus formulate statements that describe a plausible physically-based explanation for the observation, a hypothesis. The scientific method then goes to work by testing then accepting or rejecting the hypothesis. If a reasonable number of (usually many) attempts to disprove the hypothesis fail, the hypothesis stands and may be accepted as a truth. Else, if the hypothesis cannot withstand skeptical inquiry, it is rejected.

Now, a theory should not be confused with a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a testable statement. A theory describes a set of hypotheses that have withstood the skeptical process of numerous hypothesis testings. Thus, a theory represents a larger body of science than single hypotheses does.

Human-induced (a.k.a. anthropogenic) global warming theory has withstood skeptical tests since earlier than the 1990 publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report. Further skeptical challenges, that is, tests have so far served to improve the science; not result in rejection of the theory. The levels of certainty (or probability) has increased, that is, the uncertainty (or improbability) has reduced. As of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) the moment, the level of certainty (or probability) that humans influence climate is described using the following probabilistic terms…

Virtually certain:> 99% probability of occurrence (Poc); Extremely likely: Poc > 95%; Very likely: Poc > 90%; Likely: Poc > 66%; More likely than not: Poc > 50%; Unlikely: Poc < 33%; Very unlikely: Poc < 10%; Extremely unlikely: Poc < 5%.

Given the above criterion. Climate scientists working within a United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) enterprise, the IPCC, to develop energy, economic, and environmental policy recommendations, given the scientific theory that humans are be influencing climate in ways hazardous to human livelihoods and economic development, have agreed to statements like this one in 2007:

“The understanding of anthropogenic [or human-induced] warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR [Third Assessment Report, published in 2001], leading to very high confidence [probability of occurrence of 90% or greater] that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming”

You may hear people say they “do not believe in global warming”. What they mean to say is that they do not accept the scientific theory of human-induced climate change. If they want to convince friends, family, the public, scientists and policy makers that humans do not on average warm climate, they need to use the scientific method. In the words of Coby Beck:

“If you can come up with a better explanation — write it out and publish it [in an independent external review process] — or suggest it to someone qualified to do it. You will be the next super-hero scientist.”

The pseudoscience of human-induced climate change denial

I have become somewhat familiar to the work of Robert Wagner, who has been giving public lectures in Ohio with the following content: Wagner is selective in his analysis, ignoring points contrary to his position. He’s being selective to prove his point. Selective analyses, as such, rarely make it through the external review process because selective science is pseudo-science. The rare cases in which selective science make it through review represent the sad and uncommon failure of the peer-review process.

Here’s an example of Wagner being selective.

Wagner is being deceptive by being selective. In his presentation, for example, he cites a US average air temperature chart available from NOAA’s National Climate Data Center with blue lines/symbols (annual averages), red line (multi-year average), and smiley faces I suppose he added. The red line indicates the multi-year average (more akin to climate), which indicates the recent times on average are the warmest period in the US on record, even despite the relatively cool 2008 (included in the average). Wagner draws the audience’s attention to the relatively cool 2008 and selectively excludes mention of the red line, that is, the average, the climate. The shorter term fluctuations in the atmosphere that result cold or warm winters and even shorter-term phenomena like snow storms are more akin to weather than climate. The average state of weather, we call “climate”. “Weather” is the instantaneous state that, again, reflects storms or large scale fluctuations in atmospheric pressure that lead to warm or cool conditions / wet or dry conditions. The red line is a better representation of climate, because the noise (extremes, outliers) are compensated by averaging ups and downs. The annual values are relatively ‘noisy’ than the average.

Above: figure from Dr. Wagner’s presentation. The horizontal axis represents time in years. The vertical axis is of observed near-surface air temperature averaged over US stations. In Wagner’s presentation, he ignores the red line that represents the muti-year average. He selectively refers to the relatively low temperature observed in 2008 in effort to debunk the notion that the climate is warming. Note, however, that the multi-year average (the red line) indicates that in recent years, air temperatures are the warmest on record!

A NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) compilation of land and oceanic instrumental records of near-surface air temperature do not indicate a cooling trend in recent years, as recently claimed by Bob Wagner in public presentations

Bear in mind that the red line indicates a multi-year average that smooths out year to year noise. The noise is the “weather” of the climate system. Climate trends should only be deduced from decadal averages or longer, not picking out individual years. Climate and weather represent different time scales. Shown here, the instrumental temperature data are aggregated in other ways, e.g. northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere. See, no cooling.

Independent analyses of the same instrumental temperature data (but with an independent/different cooling correction for growth of cities around some of the stations) have been made by the UK Climate Research Unit at School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia, Norwich. See an example below…

Here’s more information about the CRU analyses.

—

So, you think there’s ocean cooling?

Human-induced climate deniers have blown hard about a now obsolete study (Lyman et al, 2006) that identified a (now understood to be spurious) recent cooling trend in ocean heat content data. According to Gavin Schmidt -

“The ‘cooling’ was actually due to combination of a faulty pressure reading on a subset of the [oceanic] floats and a switch between differently-biased observing systems. The pressure error meant that the temperatures were being associated with a point higher in the ocean column than they should have been, and this (given that the ocean cools with depth) introduced a spurious cooling trend when compared to earlier data. This error may be fixable in some cases, but for the time being the suspect data has simply been removed from the analysis. The new results don’t show any cooling at all.”

Isn’t transparency nice! Sorry Bob. You’ve had it wrong. If you’d have stayed current with the science (the discrepancy was identified already nearly 2 years ago! 18 April 2007), you would not now have to retract your misleading statements.

Let me explain why I’m debating anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming (AGW) deniers…

1. The deniers’ main arguments don’t hold water. In other words, there have been no acceptable arguments by AGW deniers that human activities taken globally, on (usually decadal) average (not shorter), can not significantly influence climate.
2. I am a credible expert. I have a PhD certificate in atmospheric and oceanic science. I have taught numerous university-level courses in meteorology and physical climate science. Lemme tell you, a great way to understand the science is to teach it over and over! I am a tenured professor of climate science. I am a contributing author to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report. I have published 26+ peer-reviewed publications directly related to climate science.
3. While the vast majority of climate scientists and national policy makers have dismissed human-induced global warming deniers attempts at debunking (human-induced) global warming science, there remain many undecided folk. Thus, some debate is worthy of my time.
4. Given the maturity of the science and what’s at risk (the livelihoods and economies of present and future generations), policy makers must act, even accepting the apparently very small odds catastrophic climate change won’t happen. Civilizations weigh the odds while hoping for the best yet prudently prepare for the worst.
5. I want to help civilization achieve sustainable development. Putting the deniers in their place (evidently as pseudo-scientists) makes the world a better place.

Let me warn you that I cannot justify spending more than some fraction of my time engaging the deniers. If it weren’t for the chance of helping the non-scientific as-yet undecided folk, I’d also dismiss the deniers. They are so last-century. Yet, do not take any delays in responding to counter points to mean that I’m stalling or have given up. I just don’t have all my time to devote to this cause. So, be patient. Also, alternatively, please read the science for yourself and see what I consider to be highly credible alternative sources of scientific discourse and some unequivocal truth…

• The IPCC Fourth Assessment Reports and in particular the rather dense IPCC FAR 2007 Summary for Policy Makers. Please beware that while most of the earlier IPCC reports’ conclusions have not changed, you should consider the advancements in science since earlier reports to supercede the earlier results.
• realclimate.org

Finally, be aware that there remain uncertainties. Understand that predicting future climate is a very complex problem that has engaged many of the worlds brightests atmospheric and climate scientists. Me stating that uncertainty exists does not mean that climate scientists lack crediblity, the ranks of climate scientists contributing to international assessment reports include Nobel prize winners, national science medal winners, heads of academic and governmental departments, and many who are deeply patriotic, skeptical, and caring for the world’s challenges. Me stating that uncertainty exists does not mean that climate science has not made major advancements in knowledge, climate scientists have. Don’t let the 1970s global cooling scare discredit advances in science since! Me stating that uncertainty exists does not mean that climate science has not provided projections of future climate worthy of policy response, climate science has made useful and honest projections, again, see the IPCC FAR 2007 Summary for Policy Makers. Again, given the maturity of the science and what’s at risk (the livelihoods and economies of present and future generations), policy makers must act, even accepting the apparently very small odds catastrophic climate change won’t happen. Civilizations weigh the odds while hoping for the best yet prudently prepare for the worst.

Since deniers don’t trust scientists to be careful, which they are on Mauna Loa, let’s just  throw out the Mauna Loa data for the sake of argument…  “There are dozens of other sampling stations scattered all over the globe, including one in the Antarctic, far from cities, SUVs, cement plants, and active volcanoes. It also shows the same rise [PDF], though the southern hemisphere tends to lag a few years behind the northern hemisphere, where the majority of the CO2 is produced. Here are eight others — same results.

Sorry, its all of us Joes, not the volcanoes.” – Grist

Robert Wagner (OD optometry) correctly recognizes that water vapor (what Robert Essenhigh refers to as “water gas”) is a key Greenhouse gas. Quoting the IPCC Fourth Assessment report: “Water vapor is the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997), and provides the largest positive feedback in model projections of climate change (Held and Soden, 2000).”

If Wagner read the published peer reviewed science that IPCC summarizes, he’d know that direct observations from balloon soundings show  that The average atmospheric water vapor content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapor that warmer air can hold. See IPCC 2007 Chapter 3 Section 3.4.

Meanwhile, CO2 concentrations are also increasing. Elevated CO2 concentrations have an associated net warming affect on climate. Of all the “well mixed” greenhouse gasses, CO2 has by far the largest warming effect. See figure SPM.2 in the IPCC 2007 Summary For Policy Makers.

Climate change deniers seek holes in the science instead of seeking the truth. The science by definition aims for truth.  There is no conspiracy. Climate change deniers waste the time of climate scientists and block progress. We should instead be united to protect future generations from our trashing of the environment. United we stand, divided: the rest of the world sells us technologies America should sell them.

Human-induced climate change deniers confuse weather and climate.  It’s actually simple…. Climate is the long term average state. Weather is ther short term state.

Climate models predict the average state. Weather models attempt to predict the instantaneous state. Chaos theory has it that instantaneous phenomena cannot be predicted far out. Yet, it does not take a sophisticated model to predict that if humans increase the concentration of an infrared heat-trapping gas, the climate will warm. It’s that simple. The chemistry of CO2, CH4, H2O are sufficiently well established. Climate models have reproduced observed warming. Climate models wiith human chemical transformations of our atmosphere left out have no warming. See below…

Policy makers and the public need recognize the difference between weather and climate, the latter is the average state.

Grist.org:

Objection: Scientists can’t even predict the weather next week, so why should we believe what some climate model tells us about 100 years from now?

Answer: Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different.

If the skeptics read the scientific literature, they would know that climate scientists do not ignore solar output changes in attributing past, present, and future climate forcing agents. I was shocked when The Other Paper published part of Jym Ganal’s rant that solar output changes were solely responsible for the observed climate warming; an embarrasingly (for him) simplistic claim that ignores the reality that solar output changes are one of a long list of forcing factors included in climate simulations, the latter aimed at partitioning the relative importance of various climate forcings.

As put forth in the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, that “Changes in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system.”. There is no silver bullet, as Ganahl simplistically suggests. According to a growing body of science summarized by the IPCC each 5 or so years since 1991, science’s best estimate for the role of changing solar output in climate change is that increasing solar output accounts for between 3% and 19% of the observed change in the energy balance of the climate system. Average temperature at the surface reflects the changing heat energy contained in the climate system. If Ganahl were a scientist worth his 40-year-old “Seal of Approval”, he would review all relevant and credible sources of information instead of putting forth only one of a myriad of factors that influence climate as a sole cause of warming. Yes, temperatures on Mars have increased because of increasing solar output. Again, that share on earth accounts for less than one fifth of the observed warming.

It’s unfortunate, but, the reality is that unless civilization stabilizes its non-sustainable impact on the Earth’s atmosphere, ecosystems, and resource bases, we collectively will face economic and environmental disruptions that will make us look back on the recent market meltdown as not nearly so bad.

Do your homework Ganahl. All, please see: the IPCC summary for policy makers figure SPM.2
Yours Realistically,

Jason E. Box, contributing author to The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report

Interesting, John McCain (R Ariz) accepts the science of climate change and hails cap and trade as a free-market tool to address human-induced climate warming.

I expect The Internet Skeptic (Bob Wagner) will say that any government intervention is unwelcome and anyway part of a conspiracy to rip off the tax payers. It’s just a little surprising to hear a Republican calling for an alleged tax-payer rip off, isn’t it Bob?