Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

[RickBradford]

science is permanently skeptical - it questions and changes all the time.

Yes, it does, which is another excellent reason why climatology cannot be regarded as science -- "The science is settled, the debate is over" has been the shrill mantram for a very long time.

What is settled? Gravity? Not settled. Magnetism? Not settled (do monopoles exist?). The speed of light as a true upper bound? Sure, probably, but not settled.

The experimental evidence in all of these is far more settled than it is in climate — an openly chaotic non-equilibrium system with multiple timescales, unknown couplings, and a long history of enormous climate fluctuations, fluctuations that are far larger and longer lasting than those currently observed.

Climatology is not science in any meaningful sense -- it is an ideological/political construct.

Rick - the others DO geddit - you are on your own mate!

I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood what was written.

Edited September 27, 2013 by RickBradford

[wilcopops]

...and this kind of total misquote doesn't help either

The climate models predicted warm winters and less snow for Northern Europe; which has now had 5 brutally cold winters in a row,"

This is quite inaccurate and has nothing to do with how science interprets climate change.

It is this urge to see issues limited in scope, in black and white and expect short-term results that prevents so many from fully grasping the concepts behind this science.

Documented fact: Central Europe has seen its 5th consecutive colder than normal winter in a row - a record since measurements began in the 19th century.

Climatology says:

"Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder."

(Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, 8 Feb 2006)

"More heat waves, no snow in the winter" … "Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models ...Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most … there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east.

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 2 Sept 2008.

"Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes."

Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

"Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters" … "Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change." Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

I think you need to learn how to read these articles - you can't just take a sentence out of the middle in the hope it kind of backs up your own fundamental misunderstanding of the whole matter.

[RickBradford]

There is fundamental misunderstanding, all right, but it's not mine.

Latif and Rahmsdorf are influential taxpayer-funded scientists whose statements influence government policy matters, and made these definitive statements publicly as part of their jobs.

Nature has proved them utterly wrong, yet their influence has scarcely declined.

The taxpayers -- and the environment -- deserve better than that.

[Neurath]

science is permanently skeptical - it questions and changes all the time.

Yes, it does, which is another excellent reason why climatology cannot be regarded as science -- "The science is settled, the debate is over" has been the shrill mantram for a very long time.

What is settled? Gravity? Not settled. Magnetism? Not settled (do monopoles exist?). The speed of light as a true upper bound? Sure, probably, but not settled.

The experimental evidence in all of these is far more settled than it is in climate — an openly chaotic non-equilibrium system with multiple timescales, unknown couplings, and a long history of enormous climate fluctuations, fluctuations that are far larger and longer lasting than those currently observed.

Climatology is not science in any meaningful sense -- it is an ideological/political construct.

Rick - the others DO geddit - you are on your own mate!

I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood what was written.

Hilarious. Clearly someone's been having unknown couplings. My goodness, imagine a public policy based on gravitational sciences! Laughable. Imagine technologies based on electro-magnetism! Risible. Evolutionary biology is not a science in any meaningful sense -- it is an ideological/political construct. Ask a fruit fly.

The master induction from the history of science: All present scientific theories overtuned previous theories, therefore future theories will overturn present theories, therefore no scientific theory should be believed and certainly no public policy should be built on the basis of those theories. Better to base public policy on what we want to be true.

[Neurath]

800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO₂)

See: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

My point exactly.

Very technical, very clever, but still only an educated guess and in no way proves anything about our influence over our climate or otherwise.

Really? Your point was it? Here's what you said: "Historical measures of climate and carbon levels are educated guesses rather than accurate measurements"

Now then, historical measures of carbon levels are not educated guesses. They are accurate measurements. The measurements, accurate measurements, are in the paper cited above. Perhaps you meant something else?

[RickBradford]

Better to base public policy on what we want to be true.

I disagree.

That's what is happening now with regard to global warming, and it's going pretty badly -- hundreds of billions of dollars wasted for zero effect.

[Neurath]

Better to base public policy on what we want to be true.

I disagree.

That's what is happening now with regard to global warming, and it's going pretty badly -- hundreds of billions of dollars wasted for zero effect.

Don't get too worked up about it - there won't be any meaningful policies around carbon reduction for the forseable future and by the time anyone does get around to doing something meaningful (with global causal effect) it won't matter anyway because it will be too late. You can convince the general public that smoking causes lung cancer because they can stop smoking, but on the whole you can't convince the public (or policy makers) of the clear causal connection between carbon and global temperatures because to acknowledge the facts would suggest a reduction in consumption. No one is going to do that. Much easier to deny the connection and hope for the best. Honest response would be to say I'm not reducing consumption and bugger the consequences. Might be considered self-centered but at least it doesn't evince scientific illiteracy.

[RickBradford]

the clear causal connection between carbon and global temperatures

That's not enough to warrant action. First, it has to be established that man-made CO2 emissions present a clear and present danger, and second, the solution has to be cheaper than the cost of the problem.

Because the climate 'science' is so shoddy, attempts to prove the first case simply cannot stand proper scientific scrutiny (which is why they always try to hide their data and methods), and no-one has come close to finding a solution to the second issue.

'Taking action on climate' is the ultimate bunko job, and it is very heartening to see politicians round the world beginning to realise they have been found out on their climate follies.

[Neurath]

Increase atmospheric concentrations of Carbon from 400ppm to 1,000ppm and see where you're standing.....or swimming. You know, there is no-one, well, no-one with a smidgeon of cognitive competence, who denies the causal link between carbon and global temperature. There are reasonable questions about climate sensitivity - how much a given increase in carbon will raise global temperatures. Go to 5, 6, 7 hundred ppm and then raise it some more I say. Enjoy the ride. Future looks postively Venusian

[RickBradford]

Well, climate sensitivity is the key issue, of course.

A recent paper in Nature suggested a figure of 1.3 degrees Celsius of temperature rise for every doubling of CO2 concentration.

We're currently at 400ppm, so if we get to 800ppm (which at the current rate would take 200 years), the world would (everything else being equal) be 1.3 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today.

Hardly Thermageddon, and certainly nothing worth spending trillions of dollars and adding burdensome regulation trying to prevent.

[Neurath]

Well, climate sensitivity is the key issue, of course.

A recent paper in Nature suggested a figure of 1.3 degrees Celsius of temperature rise for every doubling of CO2 concentration.

We're currently at 400ppm, so if we get to 800ppm (which at the current rate would take 200 years), the world would (everything else being equal) be 1.3 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today.

Hardly Thermageddon, and certainly nothing worth spending trillions of dollars and adding burdensome regulation trying to prevent.

Now that is interesting. Can you flick me the link to the paper in Nature? If you can't give me a link to the paper just provide the name(s) of lead authors. Like to have a look at that. Are you prepared to stand by the assessment of 800ppm and an increase in global mean temperature of 1.3 degrees Celcius over current temp? If you can stand by that we have a solid ground to enter into meaninful disputation or agreement

By the way, the "current rate" today is not the rate tomorrow as carbon emissions are accelerating very rapidly and there's no reason to think that the rate of increase will stop - not if folk in China, India etc want to live like us. Anyway, just the link to the Nature paper or the author(s) names would be nice - I can then have a cup of tea and forget all this horrid talk of climate change.

[RickBradford]

Otto, Alexander, Friederike E. L. Otto, Olivier Boucher, John Church, Gabi Hegerl, Piers M. Forster, Nathan P. Gillett, Jonathan Gregory, Gregory C. Johnson, Reto Knutti, Nicholas Lewis, Ulrike Lohmann, Jochem Marotzke, Gunnar Myhre, Drew Shindell, Bjorn Stevens, and Myles R. Allen, 2013: Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geosci., doi:10.1038/ngeo1836.

[Neurath]

Otto, Alexander, Friederike E. L. Otto, Olivier Boucher, John Church, Gabi Hegerl, Piers M. Forster, Nathan P. Gillett, Jonathan Gregory, Gregory C. Johnson, Reto Knutti, Nicholas Lewis, Ulrike Lohmann, Jochem Marotzke, Gunnar Myhre, Drew Shindell, Bjorn Stevens, and Myles R. Allen, 2013: Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geosci., doi:10.1038/ngeo1836.

Thanks, I'll take a look

[Neurath]

Otto, Alexander, Friederike E. L. Otto, Olivier Boucher, John Church, Gabi Hegerl, Piers M. Forster, Nathan P. Gillett, Jonathan Gregory, Gregory C. Johnson, Reto Knutti, Nicholas Lewis, Ulrike Lohmann, Jochem Marotzke, Gunnar Myhre, Drew Shindell, Bjorn Stevens, and Myles R. Allen, 2013: Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geosci., doi:10.1038/ngeo1836.

Thanks, I'll take a look

Is this a letter to the Editor? Looks like it's a one page letter to the Editor, but can't confirm because they want USD$145 to subscribe and USD$ 18 to read the piece. Do you have a copy you could throw my way?

Edited September 27, 2013 by Neurath

[Neurath]

Well, here's what it says (found it by googling the title):

"According to the paper, global average temperatures are predicted to rise about 20% more slowly than expected over the coming decades, but in the longer term, the authors say their work agrees with previous estimates, such as the IPCC's, that climate sensitivity is in the range of 2-4.5C"

Seems their predictions are the same as the IPCC's 2.0 to 4.5 degrees this century, with 4.5 degrees being quite the disaster.

[RickBradford]

Hmm, not sure you have the right paper there.

Here's what one of the authors actually said:

The take-home message from this study, like several other recent ones, is that the ‘very likely’ 5–95% ranges for ECS and TCR in Chapter 12 of the leaked IPCC AR5 second draft scientific report, of 1.5–6/7°C for ECS and 1–3°C for TCR, and the most likely values of near 3°C for ECS and near 1.8°C for TCR, are out of line with instrumental-period observational evidence.

The paper was free online for a while, but seems to be blocked now, and I don't have a local copy.

It's worth noting that 2 of the authors (Allen and Hegerl) are IPCC authors for the climate sensitivity portion of the upcoming AR5 report. It will be interesting to see if they are able to stick to their scientific guns against fervent activist pressure to be alarmist.

[Neurath]

Well, climate sensitivity is the key issue, of course.

A recent paper in Nature suggested a figure of 1.3 degrees Celsius of temperature rise for every doubling of CO2 concentration.

We're currently at 400ppm, so if we get to 800ppm (which at the current rate would take 200 years), the world would (everything else being equal) be 1.3 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today.

Hardly Thermageddon, and certainly nothing worth spending trillions of dollars and adding burdensome regulation trying to prevent.

Nah, what the paper says is that doubling the pre-industrial concetration of carbon in the atmosphere (from 275 to to around 550) would result in a change of between 1.9 to 4.0 degrees celsius. Given current carbon expression, 550ppm would be reached in 2050. But the rate of expression is accelerating and will likely continue to do so. I like the word Thermageddon. I'll likely have reason to use it Anyway, thanks for the reference. It takes as a premise that carbon dioxide and carbon released by humans is a DIRECT CAUSE of global warming. Go figure.

[Neurath]

Hmm, not sure you have the right paper there.

Here's what one of the authors actually said:

The take-home message from this study, like several other recent ones, is that the ‘very likely’ 5–95% ranges for ECS and TCR in Chapter 12 of the leaked IPCC AR5 second draft scientific report, of 1.5–6/7°C for ECS and 1–3°C for TCR, and the most likely values of near 3°C for ECS and near 1.8°C for TCR, are out of line with instrumental-period observational evidence.

The paper was free online for a while, but seems to be blocked now, and I don't have a local copy.

It's worth noting that 2 of the authors (Allen and Hegerl) are IPCC authors for the climate sensitivity portion of the upcoming AR5 report. It will be interesting to see if they are able to stick to their scientific guns against fervent activist pressure to be alarmist.

Here's the piece for anyone who wants it: http://www.uwe-merckens.com/bilder/Wetter/ngeo.pdf

[RickBradford]

And further discussion of the paper

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/why-the-new-otto-et-al-climate-sensitivity-paper-is-important-its-a-sea-change-for-some-ipcc-authors/

[RickBradford]

It takes as a premise that carbon dioxide and carbon released by humans is a DIRECT CAUSE of global warming.

Hardly anyone disagrees with that, except it's only CO2 (and perhaps CH4) rather than 'carbon' we should refer to, for accuracy's sake.

Go figure.

What does that mean?

[F430murci]

It now says the evidence has grown thanks to more and better observations, a clearer understanding of the climate system and improved models to analyze the impact of rising temperatures.

"Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased," said Qin Dahe, co-chair of the working group that wrote the report.

. . .

As expected, the IPCC raised its projections of the rise in sea levels to 10-32 inches (26-82 centimeters) by the end of the century. The previous report predicted a rise of 7-23 inches (18-59 centimeters).

. . .

Using four scenarios with different emissions controls, the report projected that global average temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees C by the end of the century. That's 0.5-8.6 F.

Only the two lower scenarios, which were based on significant cuts in CO2 emissions, came in below the 2-degree C (3.6 F) limit that countries have set as their target in the climate talks to avoid the worst impacts of warming.

http://m.nbcnews.com/science/extremely-likely-top-scientists-blame-mankind-more-clearly-ever-global-8C11274530

Edited September 27, 2013 by F430murci

[boomerangutang]

the clear causal connection between carbon and global temperatures

That's not enough to warrant action. First, it has to be established that man-made CO2 emissions present a clear and present danger, and second, the solution has to be cheaper than the cost of the problem.

Because the climate 'science' is so shoddy, attempts to prove the first case simply cannot stand proper scientific scrutiny (which is why they always try to hide their data and methods), and no-one has come close to finding a solution to the second issue.

'Taking action on climate' is the ultimate bunko job, and it is very heartening to see politicians round the world beginning to realise they have been found out on their climate follies.

Rick, is there any data that would convince you that the Earth is warming and human activity is a contributing factor? I get the message, from reading your many posts, that you are so fixated with denying that premise, that nothing will change your ideas about it.

[Neurath]

It takes as a premise that carbon dioxide and carbon released by humans is a DIRECT CAUSE of global warming.

Hardly anyone disagrees with that, except it's only CO2 (and perhaps CH4) rather than 'carbon' we should refer to, for accuracy's sake.

Go figure.

What does that mean?

It means I was being facetious and that I owe you an apology for being so. My applogies Sir, I'll not be so again.

Agreed to refer to CO2 and Methane rather than simply referring to Carbon. Methane is actually worse.

Some direct quotes from the paper:

"The most likely value of equilibrium

climate sensitivity based on the energy

budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C,

with a 5–95% confidence interval of

1.2–3.9 °C compared

with the 1970–2009 estimate of 1.9 °C

(0.9–5.0 °C)"

So the equilibrium (hence likely temperature) resulting from doubling C02 levels to 550ppm from Pre-industrial level of approx 225 ppm (estimated time of arrival at current emission levels is 2050) is 2 degree celcius with a range of 1.2 degrees to 3.9 degrees. Estimates prior to this study gave estimates of 1.9 degrees celcius with a range of 0.9 to 5.0 degrees. There is every reason to believe that CO2 levels will be more, far more, than double pre-industial levels by 2050. Let's have a look at levels 3 times pre-industrial levels or 675 ppm and see where we are. The only way not to get to 300% of pre industrial levels would be to limit carbon emissions (CO2 CH4). Is there any appetite for policies that would do this. Not really.

Anyway, sensible discussions about likely scenarios of AGW and what, if any, policy response is required are welcome and helpful.

[Neurath]

the clear causal connection between carbon and global temperatures

That's not enough to warrant action. First, it has to be established that man-made CO2 emissions present a clear and present danger, and second, the solution has to be cheaper than the cost of the problem.

Because the climate 'science' is so shoddy, attempts to prove the first case simply cannot stand proper scientific scrutiny (which is why they always try to hide their data and methods), and no-one has come close to finding a solution to the second issue.

'Taking action on climate' is the ultimate bunko job, and it is very heartening to see politicians round the world beginning to realise they have been found out on their climate follies.

Rick, is there any data that would convince you that the Earth is warming and human activity is a contributing factor? I get the message, from reading your many posts, that you are so fixated with denying that premise, that nothing will change your ideas about it.

Rick agrees that the earth is warming and that humans through CO2 emissions are a cause of this. He does not agree that the level of warming is enough to warrant public policies that would drastically curtail economic growth. I think that's his position - could be wrong though.

[boomerangutang]

To address an earlier post attempting to define what 'science' is:

Fersure, climate science is inexact. It's not like measuring the boiling point of water in a beaker. But data accumulates, and trends are noticed. From that, findings can be published, and predictions can be made - though even those making the predictions know there are chances, however slight, of being off.

Consensus, among scientists, has its validity, but it's not the final word. There can be variations. For example: if 98% of scientists believe the moon affects ocean tides on earth, then it's pretty safe to go with that premise - even if there's not 100% concurrence.

[boomerangutang]

The merged, 2000-year record indicates that atmospheric CO2 levels have substantially increased beyond their pre-industrial values which fluctuated around 280 parts per million (ppm) for most of the period, with a slight dip from around 1600 to 1800 C.E. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defined preindustrial concentrations as those prior to 1750. Since then, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen from around 277 ppm (IPCC, 2007) in 1750 to a global average of around 388 ppm in 2010 (386 ppm at Cape Grim and the South Pole; Southern Hemisphere concentrations tend to lag Northern Hemisphere values). See: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/three_gases_historical.jpg

source

That's a 40% increase in CO2 in the air - comparing levels in 1750 and levels in 2010. If you think CO2 is a non-issue within the context of 'greenhouse effect' contributing to GW, then you're welcome to disregard this post.

[F430murci]

the clear causal connection between carbon and global temperatures

That's not enough to warrant action. First, it has to be established that man-made CO2 emissions present a clear and present danger, and second, the solution has to be cheaper than the cost of the problem.

Because the climate 'science' is so shoddy, attempts to prove the first case simply cannot stand proper scientific scrutiny (which is why they always try to hide their data and methods), and no-one has come close to finding a solution to the second issue.

'Taking action on climate' is the ultimate bunko job, and it is very heartening to see politicians round the world beginning to realise they have been found out on their climate follies.

Rick, is there any data that would convince you that the Earth is warming and human activity is a contributing factor? I get the message, from reading your many posts, that you are so fixated with denying that premise, that nothing will change your ideas about it.

Rick agrees that the earth is warming and that humans through CO2 emissions are a cause of this. He does not agree that the level of warming is enough to warrant public policies that would drastically curtail economic growth. I think that's his position - could be wrong though.

Actually, his position seems to be more of a moving target when looking at everything he has said from beginning to end.

[RickBradford]

I would say that good science generally works as follows:

1) You make a guess (your theory)

2) You calculate the consequences if your theory were true

3) You compare those consequences with real-world observation (experiment)

4) Depending on the level of agreement between the elements of 3), you either abandon your theory, consider it proved, or modify some bits and go back to 1)

The key thing is that the theory gradually edges closer to reality -- that is, the discrepancies between theory and reality get smaller with each iteration of the theory. If that doesn't happen, the theory is tossed on the heap.

Newton's theory of gravity was good enough to be useful in the 18th and 19th centuries, but we needed the refinements added by Einstein for modern purposes (such as geostationary satellites).

The problem with climate 'science' is that we are scarcely any further forward than we were 30 years ago; the predictions from the theory (as expressed in computer models) are lousy and generally useless, and getting no better.

Yet these largely worthless models are being used as a rationale to completely re-invent the global economy, as though they were as good as the gravity theory. Why?

Because, to labour the point, global climate policy has nothing to do with climate science or any threat to the environment.

The IPCC has stated this specifically, through official Ottmar Edenhofer in 2010:

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy."

Note: Just for the record, I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which has contributed to the warming of the planet over the past 50 years. I think it is a relatively minor factor which can easily be overwhelmed by natural cycles (as seems to be the case over the past 15 years) and that its increasing presence in the atmosphere does not present an immediate threat.

The attempt to demonise CO2 is not a scientific position, but a political stance which is of great use to bureaucrats, activists and other rent-seekers.

[boomerangutang]

Fossil fuel corporations can diversify, as I'm sure they do already. I recall, 30 years ago, ARCO (a large USOil corp) was making and selling solar panels.

Even Saudi Arabia is investing in alternative energy. As is the US military, in a big way - particularly solar in SW USA.

[Neurath]

I would say that good science generally works as follows:

1) You make a guess (your theory)

2) You calculate the consequences if your theory were true

3) You compare those consequences with real-world observation (experiment)

4) Depending on the level of agreement between the elements of 3), you either abandon your theory, consider it proved, or modify some bits and go back to 1)

The key thing is that the theory gradually edges closer to reality -- that is, the discrepancies between theory and reality get smaller with each iteration of the theory. If that doesn't happen, the theory is tossed on the heap.

Newton's theory of gravity was good enough to be useful in the 18th and 19th centuries, but we needed the refinements added by Einstein for modern purposes (such as geostationary satellites).

The problem with climate 'science' is that we are scarcely any further forward than we were 30 years ago; the predictions from the theory (as expressed in computer models) are lousy and generally useless, and getting no better.

Yet these largely worthless models are being used as a rationale to completely re-invent the global economy, as though they were as good as the gravity theory. Why?

Because, to labour the point, global climate policy has nothing to do with climate science or any threat to the environment.

The IPCC has stated this specifically, through official Ottmar Edenhofer in 2010:

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy."

Note: Just for the record, I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which has contributed to the warming of the planet over the past 50 years. I think it is a relatively minor factor which can easily be overwhelmed by natural cycles (as seems to be the case over the past 15 years) and that its increasing presence in the atmosphere does not present an immediate threat.

The attempt to demonise CO2 is not a scientific position, but a political stance which is of great use to bureaucrats, activists and other rent-seekers.

I would say that you should steer clear of giving an undergraduate gloss of Karl Popper and steer even clearer from profering the notion that climate sciences should be rejected because they don't conform to some bastardized and simplified vision of Popper's Conjectures and Refutations. Rumor has it in the Philosophy of Science coven that Conjectures and Refutations would elimated most if not all sciences - even those that he held up as instantiations of it! Really, it's enough to make me upchuck my cookies into my Lakatos soup.

The presence of CO2 at 550 to 700 ppm is generally taken as something of a danger. Getting from 380 to 450 to 500 and up will be the result of human emissions. Of course the great Siberian lava fields could erupt and drown that out, not that likely though.