Anthropogenic Global Warming Reality or Fiction? Version 1.1 06Sep08

Anthropogenic Global WarmingReality or Fiction? Version 1.1 06Sep08

Francis Massen

Physics Lab, LCD and meteoLCD

Lycée Classique de Diekirch

http://meteo.lcd.lu [email protected] 2008

AGW.. reality or fiction? 2

Index

• Climate and weather• Climate metrics• Climate models• Causes of climate change• How good are the data and the models?• IPCC and the so-called consensus• The skeptics and their arguments• Major scares, real or imagined?• Cooling down?• Conclusions


Climate and weather

• Weather = actual state of the atmosphere, chaotic changes

• Climate = mean state ( min. 30 years) of the atmosphere together with its statistical variationsExtreme events are a “normal” feature of every climateClimate is always changing… it never is or was constant!


Pielke, Colorado University, 2008

The Earth’s climate system is highly

nonlinear: inputs and outputs are not

proportional, change is often episodic and

abrupt, rather than slow and gradual, and

multiple equilibria are the norm


The motor of the weather

• Sun = engine that drives weather/climate• Uneven heating by the sun of the globe

causes heat flow from hot to cold regions (through convection: air movements and ocean circulation, complicated by the rotation of the globe)


Climate change is caused by

• Variable inclination of earth axis• Variable distance earth/sun• Variable sun activity (TSI, UV and magnetic)• Variable galactic cosmic rays

______________________________• Changes in land usage and land cover• Changes in the composition of the atmosphere

(natural, anthropogenic)

long-time

short time


Climate metrics

• Global temperature (in °C) measured by surface weather stations, balloons and satellites (MSU, since 1978)

• Ocean heat content (in J) measured by ships, moores,…, floating buoys (Argo, since 2003)


Global temperature

• Not many good long-time measurements (instruments only since ~1750)

• Past temperatures must be infered from proxies (tree rings, isotope ratios in ice cores and sea-shells)

• Results often dubious and uncertain• Meaningful? (no uniform temperature)


What was commonly assumed (IPCC SAR, 1995)


The Hockey Stick (MBH 98)IPCC SAR 2001 [1]

No Medieval Warm Period !

No Little Ice Age !


The Hockey Stick (MBH 98) [2]

• Mann, Bradley, Hughes: temperature profile of middle age essentially derived from a couple of bristlecones

• Dubious statistics• IPCC TAR 2001 icon, published many million

times• Demolished by McIntire/McKitrick (2003)• Embarrassment for the IPCC (not anymore in

4AR, 2008)


The Hockey Stick (MBH 98) [3]

• Ian Jolliffe, expert statistician, 2008:

“It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics. “


The Hockey Stick (MBH 98) [3] Loehle reconstruction, not using tree rings (2007):

Medieval warm period (MWP)

Little Ice Age (LIA)


Divergence problem [1]

• Recent tree rings derived temperatures are lower than measured ones! measured

tree ring


Divergence problem [2]

Wilson, GRL, 2007: No current tree ring (TR) based reconstruction of extratropical Northern Hemisphere (ENH) temperatures that extends into the 1990s captures the full range of late 20th century warming observed in the instrumental record

Wilmking, 2008: This "divergence effect" seriously questions the validity of tree-ring based climate reconstructions


Recent temperature data sources

• Surface: GISTEMP (GISS, Nasa) [Hansen]NCDC (US)Hadley(GB) [Jones]

• Satellites:MSU = microwave sounding unitUHA (US) [Christy, Spencer]RSS (US) [Mears]


Surface temperatures heavily adjusted for UHI, instrument drift,…


One of many problems: land-based station dropout (NOAA: GHCN) favours urban stations (UHI problem)

[icecap]


Hadley 1850 to 2007

Similar warming ratevery different CO2 increase

[climate4you]

dCO2=+17ppm

dCO2=+43 ppm


Last 40 years…El Nino 1998

No GW since 2001 !

See difference!

[climate4you]


Global temperature = bad metric?

Prof. Roger Pielke, SrUniversity of Colorado, Boulder:

Global temperature is not a correct metric for climate change.Ocean heat content is the metric to be used.


Barnett [Science, 2001]

Observations (dubious?)

Decreasing global temperatures


Willis [GRL, 2004]

upper 750m


Hansen [Science, 2005]

The observed annual mean rate of ocean heat gain between 1993 and mid-2003 was 0.86 +/- 0.12 W/m2 per year for the 93.4% of the ocean that was analyzed.


Argo floater system (starting 2003)


Argo floaters in use


Argo results [Willis, JPL, 2008]

Decreasing ocean heat content!


GHG and climate forcing

• GHG’s (water vapour, CO2, methane,….) absorp a portion of the outgoing long wave radiation and radiate it back to the surface

• Earth heats up until a new equilibrium (incoming radiation = outgoing radiation) is reached

• Without GHG’s, earth would be at -18°C instead at +15°C


GHG contribution to natural GH


Climate forcing F

• F = hypothetical increase in TOA irradiance caused by a change of [CO2] relative to pre-industrial times (280ppm)

• F = 5.35*ln(actual_CO2/reference_CO2)(Arrhenius law, 5.35 from [Myrhe, 1998])

• F = 3.7 Wm-2 for CO2 doublingF = 1.7 Wm-2 today (280 → 385 ppm)

The factor 5.35 is derived from historical surface temperatures, and may be grossly overestimated! [Erren, 2002]TOA = Top Of Atmosphere


If the earth was a black body…

• Stefan-Boltzmann: F = σT4

σ=5.67*10-8

• dF/dT = 4σT3 and dT =1/(4 σ)*dF/T3

• With T = 15°C and dF=3.7 as previous gives dT = 0.68°C for a CO2 doublingand dT = 0.31°C for today


Climate sensitivity λ (earth ≠ black body)

• dT = change in global temperature caused by given change in forcing dF

• dF = λ*dT or λ = dF/dT [Wm-2K-1]• dT = dF/ λ without feedbacks• dT = dF/ (λ-f1-f2..) with feedbacks

f > 0 positive feedback (e.g. water vapour)f < 0 negative feedback (e.g. cloud cover )


The data [Spencer, 2008]

dT for doubling CO2 (from 280 to 560ppm): dT = 3.7/4.5 = 0.8 °C

Climate sensitivity


The IPCC

• IPCC = political organisation (UNEP, WMO)• Evaluates scientific literature and research and

issues AR’s (assessment reports):1990:FAR 1995:SAR 2001:TAR 2007:4AR

• Authors often are their own reviewers• With each AR comes a SPM (summary for

policy makers) written by bureaucrats and political delegates (not scientists!)

• AR’s had to be changed to conform to the SPM published before the AR’s !


IPCC = 2500 scientists?

Most important reports = ~50 authors

Mc Lean, 2008: “Prejudiced authors, prejudiced findings”:

..two of Hadley’s Centre’s contribution authors (Jones and Thorne) were among the reviewers of the chapter that they had themselves written…

…the majority of scientists who are skeptical of a human influence significant enough to be damaging were unrepresented…


IPCC and climate models

• IPCC relies heavily on anthropogenic GHG emissions and climate models

• IPCC uses scenarios (which are not predictions [Trenberth, IPCC author])

• IPCC scenarios emphasize role of CO2 emissions, neglect LULC and solar influence (LULC = Land Use Land Change)

• SPM’s ignore the poor LOSU of many forcings(LOSU = Level Of Scientific Understanding)


IPCC 4AR scenarios (2007)


IPCC forcings (4AR, 2007)LOSU = level of scientific understanding

high

low

( Change relative to pre-industrial 1750 situation)


Are the models reliable? [1]

observation hindcast by model

[Akasufo, 2007]

Akasufo: former director of the International Arctic Research Center

Vast difference between reality and model!


Are the models reliable? [2] [Freeman Dyson]

Freeman Dyson: FRS, physics professor at Princeton University


IPCC critics [1a]

• Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science.

It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say.


IPCC critics [1b]

It uses language that means different things to scientists and laymen.

It exploits public ignorance over quantitative matters.

It exploits what scientists can agree on, while ignoring disagreements, to support the global warming agenda.

And it exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty and the authority of undistinguished scientists.


IPCC critics [1c]

The "most egregious" problem with the IPCC's forthcoming report, is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists . . .

and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on.


IPCC critics [2]

• Prof. Roger Pielke Sr.University of Colorado in Boulder

The IPCC is an oligarchy that is using its privileged position to advocate for a particular perspective on the role of humans within the climate system.

• Oligarchy = form of government in which all power is

vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique


IPCC critics [3]

• House of Lords, “ The Economics of Climate Change”, 2006:

It seems to us that there remains a risk that the IPCC has become a “knowledge monopoly” in some respects, unwilling to listen to those who do not pursue the consensus line.


Consequences of global warming:there remains no phenomen that is not caused or influenced by GW!

A complete list of things caused by global warmingAcne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, African summer frost, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, Agulhas current moves, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Arctic warming (not), Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird loss accelerating, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds return early, birds driven north,… [http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm]


Climate change research $$$

• USA: $37 billion US$ to climate change-related activities since 2001

• EUROPE:6th Framework 2002-2006: 2.0 billion Euro 7th Framework 2007-20013: 9.0 billion Europlus additional funding of 3.6 billion Euro

• AUSTRALIA, 2008:$2.3 billion US$ over four years for climate research

Lindzen: “The research and support for research depends on the alarm”


Dr. Gerd R. WeberMax Planck Institute, 1992

• “Heute werden auf eine Weise Forschungsgelder verteilt und Berichte geschrieben, dass sich daraus eine positive Rückkopplungsschleife bildet, die allen Beteiligten Gewinne abwirft. Die Wissenschaftler bekommen mehr Forschungsgelder, die Medien neue Empörungsgeschichten..., den Politikern erschliesst sich ihr Stimmenpotential."

Gerd R. Weber: Treibhauseffekt. Böttiger Verlags GmbH


The major scares, real or imagined?

• Melting of glaciers and polar ice • Sea level rising• Hurricanes on increase• Drought on increase


Mont Blanc ice cap

Vincent et al. , JGR, 2007: “The most striking features of these figures are the small thickness changes observed over the 20th century. … thickness variations do not exceed ±15 m. The average changes are +2.6 m at Dôme du Goûter and -0.3 m at Mont Blanc. Considering the uncertainty interval, i.e., ±5 m, it can be concluded that no significant thickness change is detectable over most of these areas”

World Climate Report


Greenland ice

Greenland's temperature record shows that the warmest year on record

was 1941 while the warmest decades were the 1930s and 1940s

Surface mass balance~constant. Other sources: +11 Gt/year

NOAA: Arctic Report Card 2007


Arctic sea ice [1]

-10 %

[NOAA]


Arctic sea ice [2]

• Polyakov (Uni. of Alaska, Fairbanks):

Observations over the last 135 years show that the recent decrease is within the limits of natural variations since the 18th century.The natural low frequency oscillation (LFO, 50-80 years) related to fluctuations of the thermohaline circulation has a strong impact on ice variability.


Antarctic: ice balance (from satellite)

Wingham et al., University College of London, 2003: ice balance = [27 +/- 29 Gt/y]


Global sea level [1]

Gauges: 2.4 mm/ySatellite: 2.6 mm/y(Topex/Poseidon)

[Jevreshava, JGR, 2006]

~250 mm


Global sea level [2]

• Domingues et al, Nature, 2008:“…previously estimated rates for the 1990s had a positive bias as a result of instrumental errors…”“…updated estimate of near-global mean sea-level rise: 1.6 ± 0.42 mm/year for 1950 to 2003”


Global sea level [3]: sea level change is not uniform!

[Accuweather]


Hurricane frequency increase? [1]

Hurricane in the eastern Pacific (Englehart, GRL, 2008): trend is negative!


Hurricane frequency increase? [2]

US landfall hurricanes (Wang & Lee, GRL, 2008): trend is negative!


Hurricane intensity increase? [3]

[Swanson, GRL, 2007]

Variable intensity, no trend!


Increasing Drought ? [1]

[Simmon, Nasa]

NPP = net primary productivity [kgC/m2]

NPP change 1982-99


Increasing Drought ? [2]

1982-99: NDVI increases…the Sahel is greening!

NDVI = normalized difference vegetation index, measured by satellite

[Ollson, encyclopedia of earth]


Outlook: cooling down?

• Several recent changes point to a future cooler, not warmer climate

• There has been no warming since at least 2001, despite rising atmospheric CO2

• Sun activity is unusal low, Aug08 was the first month since 1913 without any sunspots

• Solar cycle 24 is late, and is predicted to be calm (idem for SC 25)


Cooling down? [temperature & CO2]

• Global temperature and CO2

1970 – 2000only period where dCO2 ~ dT

> 2000:CO2 rising, temperature decreasing


Cooling down? [temperature & CO2]

[icecap]


Cooling down? [temperature & water vapour]

• Satellites show lower troposphere cooling; atmospheric water vapor trend is negative

[NOAA, 2008]


Cooling down? [permafrost]

• Alaska

[Akasofu, 2008]

Permafrost temperatureremains constant!


Cooling down? [sunspots]

• Sunspot number and global temperature

There have been more sunspots since the 1940s than at any other period (of same duration) in the past 1150 years [New Scientist, 2003]


Cooling down? [magnetic activity]

• Sun activity increased dramatically over last century, but now is on decrease

[Motl, 2007] Cycle 23

Electromagnetic flux


Cooling down? [solar cycle length, 1]

Longer solar cycle → cooler temperature

[Lassen, Danish Meteorological Institute]


Cooling down? [solar cycle length, 2]

SC22: 9y8mSC 23: >12y4mWill the very long cycle yield lower global temperatures?(SC24 has still not started; Aug08 first month since 1913 without sunspots)

[www.dxlc.com/solar/]


Papers announcing coming cooling or reduced warming [1]

Zhen-Shan, L. and S. Xian. 2007. Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 95, 115–121. 2008. [cooling]

Keenlyside, N. S., M. Latif, J. Jungclaus, L. Kornblueh, and E. Roeckner: Advancing Decadal-Scale Climate Prediction in the North Atlantic Sector. Nature, 453, 84-88. 2008. [reduced warming]

Landscheidt, Th: New Little Ice Age instead of Global Warming?Schröter Institute 2004. [cooling]

V. S. Bashkirtsev and G. P. Mashnich: Will We Face Global Warming in the Nearest Future? Institute of Solar–Terrestrial Physics, Siberian Division, Russian Academy of sciences. August 28, 2002 [cooling]

Pyilai Ch, : Predicting Solar Cycles with a Dynamo Model. Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. 2007. [weak cycle 24]


Papers announcing coming cooling or reduced warming [2]

[Dilley, 2008]


Conclusions

• The past century warmed by ~0.7°C. The contribution of AGW to this warming is probably much smaller than that given by the IPCC consensus.

• The influence of GHG’s, especially CO2, is overstated, the natural variability (of the sun) is understated.

• Climate models are still unreliable and should not be trusted as a political decision aid.

• Climate and energy are separate problems: climate change scares should not be used to push a particular energy agenda!

• Future research and funding should be focused on energy problems; useless and costly global treaties like Kyoto should be avoided.


Anthropogenic Global WarmingReality or Fiction?

Thank you for your attention!

Fiction: most of the recent warming is anthropogenicReality: most of the recent warming is natural

Anthropogenic Global Warming Reality or Fiction? Version 1.1 06Sep08

Documents

Transcript of Anthropogenic Global Warming Reality or Fiction? Version 1.1 06Sep08